Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Technical Site, Great Massingham

Commander R. Scott-Miller: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will now make a statement regarding the future use of the technical site of the Air Ministry property at Great Massingham, Norfolk.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The Air Ministry has no plans for the future use of the technical site at Great Massingham, which is now being released.

Commander Scott-Miller: Can my hon. Friend say that the contents of this site will now be made available to other users, particularly the local rural district council who have need for some of the radiators in some of the huts on the site?

Mr. Ward: We require the available radiators for our own use; in point of fact 22 of them have been removed by the superintending engineer for R.A.F. use elsewhere or for safe custody.

Wenvoe Television Mast

Mr. S. S. Awbery: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that there is an airfield situated a few miles from the television mast now being erected at Wenvoe; and if he is satisfied that this high mast will not be a danger to the aeroplanes using this airfield.

Mr. Ward: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." The mast has been fitted with red obstruction lights.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this mast is only four miles from an airfield and that it is 950 feet high? Is he certain that it is not a danger for those using the airfield, and will be institute radar as well as lights to indicate that the mast is there?

Mr. Ward: The nearest R.A.F. airfield is seven miles away. There is a civil aerodrome nearer, but questions about that should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation.

U.S. Airfields (Expenditure)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the expenditure he has incurred in extending airfields in England for the United States Third Air Force.

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air who is responsible for the capital costs and the annual maintenance charges of the airfields in the United Kingdom occupied by the United States Army Air Force.

Mr. Ward: The total expenditure from Air Votes to date on developing airfields in England for the United States Air Force is estimated at £8,350,000. At present capital costs are shared, but additional maintenance costs are borne by the Government of the United States. These arrangements are, however, under review.

Mr. Hughes: When the Minister says they are under review, does he mean that the Prime Minister, in view of his statement that these airfields and these bombers are a danger to the safety of this country, is asking for them to be reduced?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. But the whole conception is changing, and it is right that these matters should be under review from time to time.

Mr. Beswick: While agreeing with the last part of the answer given by the hon. Gentleman, that these matters should be brought under review, may I ask if he would consider the suggestion, when they are being reviewed, that the full cost of these airfields should be met by the United States authorities before we talk in terms of borrowing money from that country for re-armament purposes?

Mr. Ward: I am afraid I cannot add anything at the moment to what I have already said.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: In view of the deplorable lack of modern machines in the R.A.F. at the present time, owing to the neglect of the previous Government, are we not extraordinarily fortunate in having the United States Air Force here at the present time?

Personal Case

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what action he has taken in respect of the case of boy-apprentice, 586228 A. F. Woodmass, stationed at the Royal Air Force Camp, Halton, Buckinghamshire, particulars of which have been sent to him, which show that he became ill on 17th February whilst on leave at his home in Slough; that a local doctor and hospital declined service on the ground that the permission of the boy's unit must be secured; that 10 hours' delay occurred after the unit was contacted before permission for local treatment was given; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such delays in medical treatment for Service men when on leave.

Mr. Ward: There is no need for the permission of the unit to be obtained before an airman on leave can be treated by a civil hospital or doctor. The action to be taken in such cases was published in the medical Press in April, 1948, and is printed on the back of the current Royal Air Force leave-pass.
I have called for a report on the reasons for delay at Halton, and I shall write to the hon. Member when this is received.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the father of this boy telephoned to the R.A.F. at Halton at 10 o'clock in the morning; that he had received no reply at three o'clock and telephoned again; that at 7.15 he telephoned the police and that meanwhile this boy was so ill that the hospital instructed his father not even to remove him to the hospital, and whether, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will take urgent action to prevent this kind of thing happening to boys in the R.A.F. when they are on leave?

Mr. Ward: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to comment further until my inquiries are complete.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the first contact the

R.A.F. had with this boy was one week later when they sent an ambulance to take him back to camp; and whether he will make a very serious investigation into all the matters relating to this very scandalous negligence?

Mr. Ward: Yes, of course. But the regulations on the matter are quite clear. I would ask the hon. Member in fairness to remember that the original error, if it can be called an error, was the fact that the local doctor was not acquainted with the regulations governing these cases.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that these cases are few and far between and that in general the public has great confidence in the administration of the Service?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Alcock and Brown Memorial

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will place a drawing or model of the proposed memorial to Alcock and Brown in the Library before he finally gives sanction for the erection of the memorial at London Airport.

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): As hon. Members are probably aware, the Royal Aero Club are sponsoring a public appeal for funds to provide a memorial to Alcock and Brown, which will be sited in the central terminal area at London Airport. Mr. William McMillan, R.A., has been asked to prepare a design and he will work in co-operation with Mr. Frederick Gibberd, the architect of the Airport, to ensure that the memorial is in keeping with its surroundings.
The Royal Aero Club intend to publish a photograph of the completed model when appealing for funds, and if it is the wish of the House I will certainly arrange for a copy of the photograph to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is quite the wrong location for this memorial, which should be in Whitehall where the Duke of Cambridge's statue is at present? This is a hopelessly wrong place.

Mr. Maclay: A lot of consideration was given to this question. I should not like to add to what I said in my reply.

Manchester—London Service

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he is now able to announce details of the proposed Manchester to London air service.

Mr. Maclay: British European Airways will introduce a daily return service on 20th April.

Mr. Erroll: Will that include Sundays?

Mr. Maclay: I should like notice of that question; but I think that it does.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to do as much for Liverpool?

Mr. Maclay: That, I think, is another question.

Helicopters

Mr. Albert Roberts: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if economic helicopters are now available; and if he will provide a service between London and the West Riding.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. Some years of research and development work are required before an economic helicopter becomes available. A service between London and the West Riding operated with the helicopters now available for passenger carriage would not contribute to that development programme.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that in this respect the West Riding has always been a neglected area?

Mr. Maclay: I have heard the same charge made about a great many other areas.

Mr. Beswick: As it is becoming increasingly obvious that, both for military and civil purposes, helicopters tend to be the machines of the future, will the Minister see whether he can arrange with his colleague in the Air Ministry for more research into these matters and for the development to be speeded up?

Mr. Maclay: A lot of work is proceeding on helicopters and we are all most anxious to see them develop as quickly as possible.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: If it is necessary to develop twin-engined helicopters before progress can be made, can the Minister say what steps are being taken?

Mr. Maclay: The present rules are that single-engined helicopters cannot fly over built-up areas. That is a necessary safety rule. A British designed twin-engined helicopter has flown, but it will be some time before it goes into active use.

Flying Boats

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the tenth Brancker Memorial lecture given on 11th February, 1952, which deplored the declining use of flying boats; and if he will make a statement on the future use of flying boats in this country.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. The Airways Corporations' future plans are based wholly on landplane operations, but two private companies registered in this country have acquired some of the flying boats formerly operated by British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Stevens: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the world, notably in the British Empire—for example, on the west coast of Canada—the coast line is particularly well suited to the operation of flying boats, though it is most unsuited to the preparation of landing grounds? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Does the Minister appreciate that Britain leads preeminently in the science of building flying boats and that it would be a great tragedy if this country were to lose the art and prestige of doing so? Will he encourage the Department to see that use is made of flying boats?

Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that some decisions were made on this question in the days of the last Government. I am examining those decisions very carefully indeed, because it is open to argument whether they were right.

Airport Trading Accounts

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation when he intends publishing the trading accounts covering the administration of British airports.

Mr. Maclay: With the agreement of the Committee of Public Accounts of this House, the preparation and publication of trading accounts for the Ministry's aerodrome services has been suspended.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole question of airfields in this country needs reviewing and that some of the surfaces are not being kept in condition? Will he look at the matter again, because these airfields ought to be run on a proper business basis?

Mr. Maclay: Statements of running costs supplemented by statements of capital expenditure are being prepared in respect of each aerodrome operated by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The statements will be available to the Committee of Public Accounts and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Erroll: Would it not be advisable to publish these accounts before imposing a charge on passengers landing and embarking at these airports?

Islands of Scotland

Mr. J. Grimond: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what aircraft are being developed for service between the Islands of Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: No aircraft is being developed specifically for service between the Islands of Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: Why is this not being done? Will the Minister consider developing an aircraft to succeed the Rapide? Also, will he press on with the question of helicopters which are most necessary for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and would not be entirely useless in the Firth of Clyde?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that it would be possible to develop a plane specifically for the Islands of Scotland. Clearly, planes should be developed which are suitable there and elsewhere. I am aware of the importance of helicopters to Scotland as well as other places.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Will the Minister bear in mind that the Rapides are rapidly wearing out without replacements or spare parts being available, and is he aware that the strong recommendation of the Scottish Advisory Council is

that a number of Heron aircraft should be made available as soon as is humanly possible, otherwise there will be a complete failure in the Islands service?

Mr. Maclay: Several types of aircraft are now being developed and one or more may prove to be suitable for these services.

South Wales

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation upon what date services will be allowed to operate from the airport at Rhoose, South Wales; what services are to be operated; and whether he can give any information which will encourage civil aviation services in South Wales.

Mr. Maclay: Aer Lingus propose to start operating a scheduled passenger service between Dublin and Rhoose on 10th June, 1952, and the necessary arrangements are now being made at Rhoose. If this service is successful Rhoose will probably be developed as the future airport for Cardiff and South Wales. Steps have already been taken to assist Cambrian Air Services Limited to establish an economic network of services, from and to South Wales, and any further proposals for development will be carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (CEASE-FIRE NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the information he has received from the United Nations as to the points of agreement that have been reached in the truce talks now proceeding in Korea and the points of disagreement that are still under discussion; and what the prospects are of complete agreement being reached at an early date.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give full details of the issues on which there is still disagreement and which are holding up the signing of an armistice in Korea.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The principle on which the neutral armistice zone shall be delineated has been agreed. The opposing commanders have agreed on a formula for


recommending to their respective governments the convening of a political conference to negotiate a Korean settlement within three months after the signature of an armistice. A large measure of agreement has been reached on the arrangements for supervising an armistice and for the exchange of prisoners of war.
Apart from relatively minor points of difference, agreement has not yet been reached on four principal questions:
(i) the repair and construction of military airfields after an armistice;
(ii) the right of prisoners of war to choose whether or not they should be repatriated;
(iii) the nomination by either side of nations neutral in the Korean conflict to provide inspection teams;
(iv) the designation of ports of entry on either side at which neutral inspection teams shall be stationed.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that full answer, may I ask him whether there are any further questions still outstanding in addition to those mentioned in the latter part of the reply?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the latter part of my answer covers the major matters of disagreement at present.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman think of any precedent for the proposal, which is one of the four matters which he says are now in dispute, where the exchange of prisoners is being negotiated and where one side has sought to put into the negotiations some proposal about consulting prisoners as to whether they wish to be liberated or not?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Can the Minister say whether it was with the concurrence of our Government that the military made a decision not to accept the Russian Government as one of the neutral observers, and does he not think that, in view of the need to try to get understanding between East and West, this is one of those matters upon which we could give way without in any way conceding any great principle?

Mr. Lloyd: The question of the nomination by either side of neutral observers is still in negotiation, and the less we say about it at present the better.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (STATUS)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for an assurance that the declaration made by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on 27th March, 1946, regarding the future status of the Sudan still remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 15th November, 1951, which sets out the present policy of Her Majesty's Government. There is nothing in that statement which conflicts with the declaration of 26th March, 1946, referred to by my hon. Friend.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what definition of titular sovereignty has been given to Abdallar Bey Khalil, Leader of the Sudan Legislative Assembly, or to any other party leader in the Assembly; and how far the United States ambassador in Cairo has expressed his Government's support for British pledges to the Sudanese.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is: So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, none, Sir.
In answer to the second part, it would not be proper for me to answer for the views of the Ambassador of another State.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that even the titular sovereignty of the King of Egypt as King of the Sudan will be misunderstood in the Sudan as a surrender of the rights of the Sudanese to self-determination?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly one of the matters which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind.

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the question of the unity of the Nile Valley is being discussed in the course of the current Anglo-Egyptian negotiations; what representations he has received concerning the effect on Sudanese opinion of any concession to the Egyptian claim to sovereignty in the Sudan; and if, in view of the apprehension caused by the official statements of the Egyptian Prime Minister on this matter, he will give an


assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take no action that might prejudice the right of the Sudanese people to determine the future status of their own country.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the current state of feeling in the Sudan. They have made certain pledges to the Sudan, by which they stand. Their policy is clearly set forth in my right hon. Friend's statement of the 15th November of last year in this House, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has any information yet suggesting that the new Egyptian Government will take a line on this matter any different from that of their predecessors, as expressed in a broadcast by the former Egyptian Prime Minister?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not yet any information on that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI WAR CRIMINALS (RELEASES)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds 42 Nazi war criminals, most of whom were members of Himmler's Gestapo guards at the concentration camps, were released in December, 1951, by the British authorities in Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It was decided last December that the period of time spent by war criminals in custody awaiting trial should be counted towards sentence. As a result of this decision, it was found that 42 war criminals had already completed their sentences; they were accordingly released on 22nd December. The prisoners released were all serving comparatively short sentences; 21 of them had been guards at concentration camps.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the leniency and clemency which has been shown to these thugs and murderers, can the Minister now give an assurance that those British citizens who are imprisoned as a result of crimes arising out of the war will now receive the same lenient treatment?

Mr. Lloyd: In no case has any man convicted of a war crime of the first order been released. They were mostly accessories to crimes, and the reason for taking this decision was to bring our practice into line with that prevailing in other zones.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still in agreement with the policy outlined in a reply given by the Under-Secretary on 29th January, 1951, when he said that there could be no question of an amnesty to people convicted of brutal crimes against humanity? Will he see that that policy is practised both in the letter and the spirit?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no question of an amnesty in this.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SERVICE ATTACHES

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total sum spent on the pay, allowances and accommodation abroad of British naval, military, air and civil aviation attaches and their staffs and the total number employed; the corresponding figures before the war; and by how much per cent. the totals of expenditure and employment have risen since before the war.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL.REPORT.

Sir E. Keeling: Can the Minister of State confirm the statement made to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government are considering the possibility of reducing the number of Service attachés?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Captain Robert Ryder: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, in this respect, the Admiralty are far more economical than are the other two Services?

Following is the reply:

STATEMENT SHOWING NUMBERS OF SERVICE AND CIVIL AVIATION ATTACHES AND STAFFS AT H.M. MISSIONS ABROAD, AND EXPENDITURE ON PAY, ALLOWANCES AND ACCOMMODATION


—>
Number of Personnel
Approximate expenditure on pay, allowances and accommodation


Pre-war (Estimates for 1938–39)
Current (1951–52)
Per cent. Increase
Pre-war (Estimates for 1938–39)
Current (1951–52)
Per cent. Increase






£
£



Naval Attachés and Staff
26
80
208
36,000
181,000
403


Military Attachés and Staff
54
185
243 
55,000
414,000
653


Air Attachés and Staff
44
91
107
41,500
301,015
625


Civil Aviation Attachés and Staff
Nil
42
—
Nil
68,951
—


TOTAL
124
398
221
£132,500
£964,966
628


NOTES.—(1) Figures of expenditure for 1951–52 are based on current actual expenditure.


(2) Official expenditure on domestic accommodation, rent allowances, etc., where applicable, is included.


(3) Cost of office accommodation is not included. Attachés' offices are normally situated on the Mission premises, and separate figures are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. OVERSEAS SERVICES

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision he has reached on the subject of making a special grant, outside the fixed grant-in-aid from the Exchequer to the British Broadcasting Corporation to cover the current cost of the measures which are being taken, and might have to be extended in the future, to counter the jamming of the British Broadcasting Corporation's East European and Central European transmissions by the Cominform countries.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 3rd March.

Sir D. Savory: As that answer did not really reply to the Question now on the Order Paper, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is virtually going to allow the Cominform to restrict our overseas services, owing to the fact that we have to pay for the counter-jamming, which is enormously expensive and has to come out of the ordinary Budget?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to which I referred my hon. Friend stated that no final decision had yet been reached as to meeting the cost of the measures necessary to counter jamming.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Before a final decision is reached, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look up what his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary said a year ago about the unwisdom of cutting our foreign broadcast services?

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable body of opinion that is very uneasy on what looks like being an economy that might be needed from the strictly financial point of view, but which is really penny wise and pound foolish?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly a matter which will be borne in mind when the final decision is being arrived at.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that if anything is calculated to encourage the Russians to undertake further jamming, it will be the knowledge that jamming does result in a reduction of the programmes sent out?

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a number of British Broadcasting Corporation's transmissions which are listened to in Eastern Europe and which are not jammed at present, for instance, in English, French and German, will have to be cut because of lack of


funds; and if Her Majesty's Government will make available additional funds for the British Broadcasting Corporation's Overseas Services.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is a limited audience in Eastern Europe for broadcasts in English, French and German. But the cuts in these services will be relatively small. In any case, no additional funds can be made available.

Sir D. Savory: Has the attention of the right hon and learned Gentleman been called to the official statement of the B.B.C. of 9th February, in which they deplore the fact that they have to cut their broadcasts in English, French and German? Is he not aware that that is an extremely serious matter, because once we lose listeners we shall not get them back?

Mr. Lloyd: The difficulty about this matter is that it is necessary to make certain cuts, and, in making these cuts, decisions have been arrived at which, in our view, are calculated to interfere to the least possible extent with these valuable services.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to recall that the Government which he serves seems to be quite ready to change its mind, even as to the date of the Budget?

Captain Charles Waterhouse: Are not these economies entirely due to the mishandling of our affairs by the previous Government?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent other countries from using wavelengths hitherto used by Britain during the hours of the day when overseas programmes previously transmitted by the British Broadcasting Corporation are discontinued as a result of the reduction in broadcasting hours announced recently.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None. The permanent use of a wavelength can only be ensured by constant transmission on it. The British Broadcasting Corporation will naturally make every effort to maintain in operation the most effective wavelengths at the best listening times.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that by instituting these cuts this year it may very well be impossible to restore them in any subsequent year? Could he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who so strongly criticised similar cuts last year, with a view to getting the decision altered?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no question of giving up any wavelengths. With regard to ensuring that a wavelength which is not in permanent use is not taken over by somebody else, that is no new problem, because few of these wavelengths have been used all the time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does not the Minister realise that there is a sort of squatters' right in the air on this matter and that if one stops using channels they are permanently lost? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many we are in danger of losing in this way as a result of the cuts?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer is none. The amount of the cut is extremely small. As I said, the problem of ensuring that people do not squat on a wavelength which is no longer being used is not a new problem.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to which European countries no indigenous language broadcasts will be directed and which European countries will suffer a curtailment of such services as a result of the proposed reductions.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As certain languages are indigenous to more than one country in Europe, I will, if I may, answer this Question in terms of language services instead of countries. The weekly broadcasts in the Luxembourg dialect and special supplementary service to Belgium will be discontinued. These are at present broadcast for a quarter of an hour per week and half a hour per day respectively. The French and Dutch language services will continue to be available to listeners in Belgium. Language services to Europe which are being curtailed are Danish, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Norwegian and Portuguese.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister realise that the net saving on these drastic reductions is only £68,000 and that to reduce the services so drastically for so niggling a saving is not worth while?

Mr. John Profumo: Although these reductions are not very great, would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as our foreign policy and our rearmament policy are primarily directed to avoiding another war, it is equally important for us to maintain our psychological striking force as it is to maintain our military striking force?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is most important that we should keep in touch with Eastern Germany, because the loss of Eastern Germany from the point of view of loyalty to democracy might eventually cost us far more in military preparations than any relatively trifling sums that would be saved by stopping the German broadcasts to these people?

Captain Waterhouse: Will the Minister take steps to assure himself that these cuts are all necessitated by the comparatively small and most justifiable reduction in expenditure?

Mr. Lloyd: I would again emphasise that it is quite untrue to describe these as drastic cuts. They are comparatively small cuts, and, in our view, they have been made in the best possible way.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister consider that the reduction of 32 hours a week in the projection of Britain abroad over the B.B.C. is not a drastic cut?

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the British Broadcasting Corporation's foreign services are now being jammed; and what action is being taken to counter such jamming.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The British Broadcasting Corporation's Russian, Polish and Finnish services are now being jammed, and special schedules have been introduced involving the use of multiple transmission by batteries of transmitters. There is also some evidence of partial jamming of other B.B.C. programmes to Eastern Europe. This is being watched, with a view to suitable action in case of need.

Mr. Davies: In view of the extension of this jamming, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman press upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the cost of these counter measures? Does he realise that

there is a dual victory for the U.S.S.R. in the propaganda war, in that if they succeed in jamming our broadcasts they not only jam our broadcasts to Eastern Europe but, on the present basis, compel us to cut down our broadcasts to Western Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: No final decision has been made on the cost of jamming and, of course, the effect of losing services through jamming will be certainly borne in mind.

Mr. Davies: When can we have a final decision? The B.B.C. are in a difficulty at the present moment about the services they must cut in order to counter jamming.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be very careful that the impression does not go out that his motto is "Always jam today."

Mr. Wyatt: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the entire House is against the Government in this matter and that the Government are hopelessly insensitive to the feeling of the whole country?

Mr. Lloyd: The difficulty with economy is that nobody wants to make the economy. In this instance we are accepting a cut on expenditure on this service, or rather we are avoiding an increase in our expenditure on this service. And we are doing our best to give the best service within our financial limitations.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: Who is in fact paying for counter-action against jamming at the moment until the final decision is taken?

Mr. Lloyd: The anti-jamming measures are being paid for out of the grant-in-aid.

Oral Answers to Questions — ERITREA (MASSAWA DEMOLITIONS)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the wharves, railways and airports at Massawa are being destroyed by British authorities.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No wharves of railways at Massawa have been destroyed. There is no airport, only a landing-strip, and it is not being destroyed.

Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are many buildings and establishments in this port and in the adjoining naval base which have been handed over or sold to the French or Egyptian authorities and which are now being destroyed? Before he permits any other demolition, will he consult the Ethiopian Government with a view to avoiding such destruction, as there is already much destruction going on in many directions?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question on the Order Paper refers solely to railways, wharves and airports, and I have answered with regard to them. So far as the demolition of the naval base is concerned, that was a decision taken long ago, and that is the decision which has been implemented.

Mr. Freeman: But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not consult the Ethiopian Government with a view to avoiding any further demolition in the naval base which serves no useful purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: No further demolition will be authorised except in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that Ethiopia was the loyal ally of this country from the beginning of the war? Would it not have been a gracious act on our part to have left these things or to have handed them over to the Ethiopian Government?

Mr. Lloyd: The decision to abolish the naval base was taken a long time before the United Nations decision that Eritrea should be federated with Ethiopia.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a statement on the Persian oil position.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Hon. Members will recall that the International Bank has for some weeks been considering whether it could in some way assist towards a solution of the present deadlock over Persian oil. Mr. Garner, one of the Bank's Vice-Presidents, recently spent some two weeks in Teheran discussing with the Persian Government what

form that assistance might usefully take. He has since been in London, where he has had talks with Ministers and two meetings with my right hon. Friend.
In these talks Mr. Garner conveyed to Her Majesty's Government, as he had already conveyed to the Persian Government, the Bank's proposals for seeking an interim settlement of the Persian oil dispute. Her Majesty's Government gave Mr. Garner their views on these proposals. Mr. Garner is now in Washington, but one of his colleagues, who has accompanied him on his travels, has now returned to Teheran to resume discussions with the Persian Government.
In all his talks on this matter, Mr. Garner has made it clear that the Bank is acting as an impartial international body, whose sole interest is to use its good offices to assist in settling a dispute which has arisen between two of its members.

Mr. Janner: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is likely to be some successful or material result from these negotiations in the near future in view of his conversations with the Vice-President of the International Bank?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly hope there will be a successful result to these negotiations.

Mr. Philips Price: Will the Minister assure the House that any negotiations between the International Bank and the present Persian Government will not in any way prejudice the rights of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company under the old treaty?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which certainly has to be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Bacteriological Warfare and Atomic Research

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official representations were made to Her Majesty's Government by the West German Chancellor, regarding German research into atomic energy developments and bacteriological warfare; and what was Her Majesty's Government's answer.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There have been no such representations, but these matters have been discussed in the contractual negotiations between the three Western Governments and the Government of the Federal German Republic as part of the wider question of security safeguards.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on his return to Germany after the London talks Dr. Adenauer said that he had permission to undertake research into atomic energy and into bacteriological warfare? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, first, whether that is true, and, secondly, where one draws the line when it comes to research into bacteriological warfare and to manufacturing weapons for that purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not correct, in fact, that the German Federal Chancellor stated what it has been suggested in some quarters he did say. I have here a text of what he actually said. It is rather long, and I should be pleased to show it to the hon. Gentleman afterwards if he would like to see it.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Has my right hon. and learned Friend's attention been drawn to reports appearing in the Communist Press regarding the use of bacteriological warfare by the Americans, and will he deny such reports?

Mr. Lloyd: A statement has been made on that matter by the United States Secretary of State denying that fact.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Minister perhaps circulate the German Chancellor's statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Following is the statement:

Extracts on Security Controls from the Federal Chancellor's Press Conference in Bonn on 20th February.

A very long discussion took place on the question of the creation of armaments industries. In this connexion the following should be borne in mind. First, that the Federal Republic is not even in a position, and furthermore is not even inclined, to set up industries such as, for example, atomic or bacteriological industries or factories for "V" weapons or anything of that sort. Apart from this, war industries must naturally be situated where they are least vulnerable in the event that things should really become serious. This point of view naturally plays a large role as well. In the Treaty regarding the European Defence Community, according to the present draft, it

is laid down that the manufacture of weapons is forbidden for all members unless they receive specific orders from the Defence Commissioner. Otherwise, our economy will be free, and our scientific research in these fields will equally be free, and certainly as far as medical or economic aspects are concerned. Furthermore there are to be further negotiations here on this subject.

Question: You said that the industrial controls would cover almost exclusively bacteriological and other fields. In the foreign Press there has been talk of much more extensive controls. Is all this still to be clarified in negotiation or were concrete proposals for controls discussed in London?

Dr. Adenauer: I do not believe that I only spoke of bacteriological and atomic controls, but I said that in many cases, as for example in the case of atomic weapons and bacteriological weapons, it is a matter of things which we would not even wish to manufacture, even if we could manufacture them. We do not even possess the facilities for such manufacture. We have not even got the money. I said the same about "V" weapons, and I would like to add that the same applies to large warships. Small coastal defence vessels are another matter. But those are the essential points, and on them there is agreement. On other points there will be further negotiations, because the definitions in the proposals put forward by the Western Allies were still too imprecise, so that we should certainly have run into difficulties there. But in all these connexions scientific research is free.

Berlin (Missing R.A.F. Men)

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the detention of three members of the Royal Air Force by the Soviet authorities in Berlin.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have received a report that three British other ranks were arrested in the Soviet zone on 24th February. It is presumed that the three persons concerned are leading aircraftman Hickey, leading aircraftman Griffin and A.C.1 Shelton of the R.A.F. Regiment, who have been missing from their unit since the early hours of 24th February.
The Soviet military authorities in Berlin were asked on 26th February to establish whether these men are in the Soviet zone and, if so, to facilitate their release. A reply has been received stating that no British personnel were detained in the Soviet sector of Berlin on 24th February. A request has now been addressed to higher Soviet authorities for an answer to the original inquiry whether the missing men are in the Soviet zone of Germany.

Western Defence Contributions

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government as to the amount of naval and air contributions to Western defence to be allowed to Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is that, subject to certain safeguards, a German contribution to Western defence should be made through the European Defence Community on a comparable basis to the defence contributions of other members of the European Defence Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The size of the forces to be contributed to the European Defence Community is still under discussion.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister explain exactly what that means? Are we to understand that Her Majesty's Government are committed to a German military contribution to Western defence? Could he assure us that the Government are not committed to the establishment of a new Luftwaffe or anything in the nature of an embryo German Navy?

Mr. Lloyd: As to a German Luftwaffe, there will be no German national force under the proposed arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (CHINESE NATIONALIST FORCES)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will bring the situation in the Kentung Province of Burma to the attention of the Security Council under Article 35 (1) of the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the Chiang Kai-shek administration occupy a seat on the Security Council, and is it not therefore a matter of concern when it is alleged that a member of the Security Council is maintaining and reinforcing its troops on the territory of a member State of the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the position of Her Majesty's Government quite clear in his speech on 5th February. These troops are said to be on the territory of

Burma and it is considered just as well to let Burma have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that Burma asked at the General Assembly that action should be taken to secure the withdrawal of these troops and are we satisfied that members of the United Nations have done everything they can to persuade the Chiang Kai-shek Government that their troops must be withdrawn?

Mr. Lloyd: As far as I can recollect the proceedings of the Assembly, the Burmese representatives were particularly anxious that these matters should not be brought before the United Nations. The question of persuasion or representation is another matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the Burmese declared—

Mr. Speaker: We have to pass on. We cannot waste too much time on one Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Meru Tribe Evictions

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances under which 30 families of the Meru Tribe in Tanganyika were evicted from tribal lands in the Engare-Nanyuki, Ngabobo and Leguruki areas, in view of the report by a Nairobi barrister, of which he has been provided with a copy, stating that homes were burnt, household utensils were broken, cattle slaughtered or taken away, crops destroyed, and old persons and a baby of three days died during the forcible transference.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I have received from the Governor a report on the measures it was necessary to take to move these people in order to complete the scheme of land settlement in the District, of which particulars were given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 5th December last. The people concerned declined to move voluntarily. After the occupants and their belongings and some livestock had been compulsorily removed it was


unfortunately necessary to burn their huts. Hut owners will of course be compensated for this destruction.
The report states that one man died as he was about to get on to a lorry which was removing people from the area. He had volunteered to move when his hut was visited. Later investigation showed that he had been ill for some time and a post-mortem showed that he had been in an advanced stage of tuberculosis. Two cattle died from East Coast fever during the move.
I am writing to the Governor to ascertain whether there have been any events subsequent to his report which would justify the allegations referred to and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have received a reply.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that this report on the events by a barrister and the official Government report agree that death did occur during these evictions, he will be prepared now to ask for an independent, impartial investigation into the circumstances of these evictions?

Mr. Lyttelton: I must await a report from the Governor before taking further steps.

Constitutional Changes

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received the Governor's Report of the debate of 14th and 15th November in the Legislative Council of Tanganyika on the proposed new constitution for the Colony; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have received from the Governor his verbatim record of the debate referred to, but I have not yet received his final views on the recommendations for constitutional changes which have been under consideration. I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Johnson: Does not this suggested new constitution mark a step forward in that it will give parity of representation to the African, to the European and the Asiatic peoples there?

Mr. Lyttelton: These matters which are under consideration are very important,

and when the Governor is able to write to me—which I hope will be in the next two months—I will take the opportunity of answering a Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress he has made this year with the policy of closer association between Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; what preparations he has made for the forthcoming conference on the subject; where and when it will be held; who will compose it; and what will be its agenda.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have nothing to add to the information on these matters given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations and myself in yesterday's debate, except that the composition of the various delegations has not yet been decided.

Mr. Hughes: As to the preparations for the forthcoming conference, is the Minister aware that the recent interviews in London, at which the Africans were not represented and at which an agenda was prepared behind their backs, have caused great suspicion on the part of Africans? What is he doing to reassure Africans on that point?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have nothing further to add to what I said yesterday.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that closer association may have been dealt a disastrous blow last night by the decision of the Opposition to vote against it, a decision which will further encourage those people who are always trying to inflame the minds of a primitive people?

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider appointing a Parliamentary Commission to visit Central Africa and investigate African opinion upon the question of the Federation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. Lyttelton: In view of the invitations to the two African representative bodies to come here shortly for consultation my answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Johnson: Would the Minister not agree, particularly in view of yesterday's debate, that such a mission would be at least helpful to him?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think not at the moment. Naturally, I would always consider it.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish as a White Paper the criticisms and objections of the Governments of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland regarding the proposals for Central African Federation; and the conclusions reached in the recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. The hon. Member will have seen the communiqué published on the conclusion of the recent informal talks with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. I will circulate a copy of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As I told the House yesterday some, but not all, of the criticisms of certain aspects of the proposals contained in the Officials' Report have now come in from the Central African Governments. They will be discussed with the African representatives and subsequently at the April Conference.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the phrase "criticisms and objections" is quoted from the official Government communiqué. Were these criticisms and objections actually discussed at the recent conference and are they to be published so that we and the African population may be aware of them before the April conference?

Mr. Lyttelton: While I do not concede the criticisms, I am perfectly prepared to consider putting them in a White Paper.

Following is the communiqué:
Since the publication on the 21st November, 1951, of His Majesty's Government's statement on the subject of closer association of the three Central African territories of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland His Majesty's Government has received from or through the Governments of the three countries a number of criticisms of the federation proposals formulated by the London conference of officials in March, 1951.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies have discussed with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and with the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the criticisms that have been expressed in the three countries. As the result of the discussions they are asking the Governments of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to inform His Majesty's Government and each other before the 1st March of any modifications to the officials' proposals that each of the Governments may consider desirable.
His Majesty's Government are suggesting to those Governments that a full conference should be held in London towards the end of April to consider any modifications suggested by any of the four Governments and to formulate a final draft scheme of federation. The intention is that this draft scheme should then be published as a White Paper and should be considered in the countries concerned. As soon as possible thereafter His Majesty's Government and the Governments of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would decide whether or not to accept the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Chief Secretary's Retirement

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for a statement concerning the resignation of Mr. del Tufo, Chief Secretary of Malaya.

Mr. Lyttelton: Shortly after the arrival of the new High Commissioner, Mr. del Tufo submitted a request to be allowed to retire on the ground that the recent reorganisation of the higher posts in the Federation had radically changed his position. I have acceded to his request. I should like to take this opportunity of again expressing my appreciation of Mr. del Tufo's work as Chief Secretary and in administering the Government during the trying period between the murder of Sir Henry Gurney and the arrival of Sir Gerald Templer.

Air Commodore Harvey: In view of this gentleman's comparatively young age, is it not unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to employ him elsewhere when he has rendered such valuable service in the three or four years during which he deputised in Malaya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have, of course, considered this possibility, but there is no post vacant to which he could be appointed.

Kampong Belum Evacuations

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons for the recent order to the population of Kampong Belum by the British military authorities to bum their crops.

Mr. Lyttelton: The order was given as a preliminary to the evacuation of the inhabitants of Kampong Belum, which is now in progress. This very isolated area has been dominated by terrorists who forced the Malay villagers to grow food for their use and as adequate protection would have involved a disproportionate burden on the Security Forces it was decided to evacuate the inhabitants.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister realise that his policy is more likely to make than break Communists, and will he not consider telling the military authorities to prevent this kind of situation arising in the future?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly not. This is part of the policy instituted more than a year ago for the re-settlement of outlying squatters in re-settlement areas where they can be properly protected.

Deputy High Commissioner (Appointment)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions took place with local representative leaders before the Deputy High Commissioner was appointed in Malaya.

Mr. Lyttelton: The creation of the post of Deputy High Commissioner for the period of the emergency was discussed and approved by Their Highnesses the Rulers and the Federal Legislative Council.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this appointment of a person from this country, over-riding local feeling and losing the opportunity to appoint a highly qualified local person, is going the wrong way about getting the sympathies of the Malayans on our side?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a matter of opinion, in which I differ strongly from the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL STUDENTS, U.K. (HOSTELS)

Sir E. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the loss of £70,215 during 1950–51 on the 11 residences for overseas students administered by the British Council for the Colonial Office, including a loss of £27,483 in six months on the residence in Hans Crescent without any amortisation of £78,598 spent on adapting the building; and if he will close these residences.

Mr. Lyttelton: During 1950–51 the British Council administered seven (not 11) residences for Colonial students on behalf of the Colonial Office and the loss on these residences was £56,751. The net operating loss of £27,483 at Hans Crescent includes overhead charges of £7,922 for the first six months of the year when, because of adaptation work, no occupation was possible. For the remaining six months only partial occupation was possible for the same reason. Three of these residences have been closed. I do not propose to close the remaining four residences, which play a useful part in the welfare of the increasing numbers of colonial students in this country, but I shall try to ensure that they are run with all reasonable economy.

Sir E. Keeling: Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures in my Question are quoted from the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to this House?

Sir Richard Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind there is also a need for increasing the number of places available to colonial students in hostels of some kind, which are preferable to the type of lodgings which are often provided?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is asking me another question, but in any case I have no intention of closing any more.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to make a statement about further constitutional changes in the Gold Coast.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. In the light of the working of the present constitution and on the advice of the Governor, Her Majesty's Government have decided that the Leader of Government Business in the Legislative Assembly should disappear from the constitution and that the office of Prime Minister should be formally recognised. The Governor will consult the Prime Minister before submitting to the Assembly the names of persons whom he proposes for appointment as Representative Members of the Executive Council, or Cabinet, and before allocating to them portfolios.
The Prime Minister will rank in precedence in Cabinet immediately after the Governor, or Officer Administering the Government as the case may be, and before any of the three ex officio Ministers, whose position in other respects will remain unchanged. The necessary amendments to the constitutional instruments to give effect to these and other consequential changes will be made very shortly.

Mr. Reid: Does not this prove that there is no permanent half-way house between bureaucracy and democracy?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the question is too wide to be dealt with at Question time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (ATTACKER AIRCRAFT)

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many Attacker aircraft have crashed recently; and if the causes have been established.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): I regret that it would be contrary to long established policy to give the information for which the hon Member asks.

Mr. Callaghan: If we take the trouble to go through the newspapers we shall be able to add them up ourselves. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman save us a little trouble by doing it for us? As the newspapers have published that an Attacker class of aircraft had crashed recently, will he consider issuing a statement whether there are any related causes which connect these crashes one with another?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that information can necessarily be obtained from the newspapers. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no undue cause for alarm, in view of the number of flying hours, and every accident is very carefully investigated. If the hon. Gentleman would like to talk to me on the subject I should be happy to see him.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. AIR FORCE (BRITISH BASES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of his repeated warnings that the presence of atom bombers in East Anglia involved great danger to Britain, he will propose the transfer of the American bombers now in Britain to American territory.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 21st November, 1951.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister still hold the view that he expressed when he was the Leader of the Opposition, that these bases were a great source of potential danger to the people of this country, and is there not a case for considering this proposal on the ground that they bring greater danger than security?

The Prime Minister: That question is fully covered by my original answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (SUGGESTED MINISTER)

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes, in accord with the recommendations of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, to appoint a Minister to be specially responsible for European affairs.

The Prime Minister: The recommendations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have still to be considered by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at its next meeting. Meanwhile, it would not be appropriate for me to make any statement about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Ex-Miners (Release)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to make a further statement with regard to the releasing of miners still in the Forces.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): As the hon. Member is aware, over 3,000 ex-miners have been released from the Forces to resume employment in the industry. Any extension of last year's scheme, in particular one to cover men who entered a regular engagement before 1st January, 1949, would result in the loss of experienced Regulars who cannot be spared. Such men are vital to the build-up of the Forces if these are to be able to meet their increasing commitments.

Mr. Fernyhough: There are still 30,000 miners in the Forces. If we are to win the cold war we have to win the coal war, and if we are to win the coal war we have to have more miners. Will the Parliamentary Secretary not therefore look at this again and see that these men who can get the coal which the country vitally needs are given an opportunity to do so?

Mr. Birch: There has been no change of policy under the present Government and I think the recruiting figures for the miners are much more encouraging lately. I cannot give the undertaking.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a few weeks ago the Prime Minister promised that he would reconsider this matter? From the way he spoke I expected a more favourable reply.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Is not the reply that the Parliamentary Secretary has given this afternoon very discouraging to the case for accepting Italian workers in the coal mines when British coal miners are not allowed to come back and produce the coal?

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is a sound policy to call up in peace-time those who are not required to be called up in war-time?

Mr. Birch: No miners are called up for National Service.

Accused Persons (Proceedings)

Mr. W. J. Field: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he is aware that members of the Forces have been charged twice with the same offence, once before a service court-martial and subsequently before a civil court; and if he will obviate this practice by delaying the court-martial until after the proceedings in the civil court.

Mr. Birch: It is legally possible for the same set of circumstances to give rise to proceedings both before a civil court and before a service court-martial, but in practice the alleged offender is not tried for the same offence both by a civil court and by a court-martial.
Where jurisdiction is concurrent, it is the responsibility of the chief officer of police concerned, normally after consulting the commanding officer of the unit in which the accused person is serving, to decide whether proceedings should be taken in a civil court, or the man handed over to the service authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — FATAL ACCIDENT, MANCHESTER

Sir Robert Cary: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make on the tragic road accident which occurred in the hon. Member's constituency yesterday, when four children were killed and six seriously injured whilst waiting at a bus fare stage at the junction of Crossley Road and Errwood Road, Burnage, Manchester.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): I am grieved to learn of this serious accident. I should like at once to express my deep sympathy with the injured children and with the families of those who were killed and injured. I am sure the House will understand that I cannot, at this moment, make any comment on the circumstances of the accident, but I have called for an immediate report.

Sir R. Cary: Whilst I am deeply appreciative of the sympathy which my hon. Friend has just expressed with the parents of the children involved in this accident, may I ask him whether a


Ministry of Transport observer will attend the inquest so that any useful lesson which may be learned from this tragedy can be effectively passed on to local road safety committees?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. My Department will be represented at the inquest and obviously any lessons which can be learned will be conveyed to wherever best use can be made of them.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Would the Minister bear in mind that the nation is shocked by regularity with which we are having such accidents? Would he keep in mind the desirability of having a wider inquiry, possibly a Royal Commission, so that we can have a coherent policy on the way to deal with this matter?

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: In view of the fact that the Ministry of Transport is an interested party, may I also appeal for a much wider form of inquiry?

Mr. William Oldfield: As representative of the Gorton Division of Manchester, which has suffered very much indeed from the casualties in this accident, may I stress the point raised by several hon. Members—that there should be a Royal Commission and a full investigation into this subject and into our road transport?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st March, I shall call attention to the need for the better organisation of the distribution of the essentials of life, and move a Resolution.

BLITZED TOWNS (RECONSTRUCTION)

Mr. Ralph Morley: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st March, I shall call attention to the failure of Her Majesty's Government to continue the policy of the late Government in making special provision in the capital investment programme for the reconstruction of blitzed towns, and move a Resolution.

DOUBLE-SHIFT WORKING

Mr. Anthony Fell: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st March, I shall call attention to the need for the full use of machinery and the desirability of double-shift working, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

DEFENCE

3.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I beg to move, "That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1952 (Command Paper No. 8475)."
Although I feel that it will be in the general convenience that I should make this statement, I can no longer speak as Minister of Defence. On the day when I accepted the late King's Commission to form a Government, I proposed the appointment of Lord Alexander to this office, and His Majesty was greatly attracted by the proposal. It was necessary, however, to obtain the assent of the Canadian Government and to enable them to make all necessary arrangements in due course.
I had foreseen this delay, even if Lord Alexander were willing to accept so onerous a task. In the meanwhile, I welcomed the opportunity of surveying again this scene, which six years ago I knew quite well, and noting the many changes which had taken place in the interval. I will now, Sir, on handing over these duties, commend this White Paper, which has been circulated for some days, to the attention of the House.
I must, however, put on record certain reserves which are necessary. It takes a long time, and much Departmental work, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, to prepare documents of this kind, and, for reasons which the House will under- stand, we had to hasten its presentation to Parliament. Meanwhile, events move constantly forward. Even the present Service Estimates and the White Paper now before us, must be subject to unceasing scrutiny to eliminate all waste and, of course, production may be affected by the non-delivery of machine tools and by the shortage of dollar purchasing power.
I shall not occupy the House at any length with the Amendment which I have heard that the Ministers mainly responsible in the late Parliament for the conduct of our armaments—conduct good or bad—have placed on the Paper. We said something like this about them last year and we shall certainly not be offended by any opinion they may form of us. Our opinion, however, was based upon several years' experience of their methods. Theirs

can only be a guess, and I trust will not be a hope.
While we criticised the mistakes they made from time to time, and above all their repeated changes—vacillations, I think, was the word that was used—in the periods of compulsory National Service—now up, now down, now up again—we always gave them support in all necessary measures for national security. They always knew they had us with them if it ever came to a vote against their own tail. I do not suggest that we were with them yesterday morning. But this must have been a great help to any Government carrying on the business of the nation, especially as they were able at the same time to accuse us of seeking war and armament expansion whenever an election came along.
I hope that the Division which, I understand, we are to have tonight will not mean that the Socialist Party intend to revert to their pre-war practice of voting against necessary measures of defence, as they did against conscription before the war, and that they will at any rate consider themselves as bound to give general support to treasures for which they themselves were originally responsible.
I will now endeavour to give some general account of the British defence position as I leave it. When I spoke to the House on defence at the beginning of December. I mentioned that there would certainly be a lag in carrying out the £4,700 million programme to which the late Government had given their support, and which they had increased from their original £3,600 million programmme introduced earlier in the same year. This has manifested itself in a shortfall in 1951–52 of £120 million, as is shown in the White Paper.
After the £3,600 million programme was proposed by the Socialist Government, they accepted an interim offer of 112 million dollars of aid from the United States of America in respect of machine tools. They had, indeed, stipulated for much larger help and relied on securing it in due course through the so-called "burden-sharing exercise" then agreed in principle with the Americans. We are to receive this 112 million dollars progressively as machine tools are delivered, and delivery is only just beginning, but we hope it will be completed in about 15 months' time.
Meanwhile the £4,700 million programme on which we are now engaged has not received aid on a scale in keeping with the defence burden undertaken by the late Prime Minister or with our needs. Following the recent studies of the Temporary Council Committee—the "three wise men," as they are sometimes called—the United States Government have allotted to us a sum of 300 million dollars, none of which has yet been received. There is no question of reproaches on either side, but the fact remains, as I have foreshadowed, that the re-armament programme is much more likely to be carried out in four years than in three. Had it been carried out in three years as originally planned, the cost through the rise in prices would have been not less than £5,200 million. Of course, spread over a longer time the impact is less severe, but the total will be larger because of the added cost of the longer maintenance.
I should, however, be misleading the House if I led it to suppose that the delay which has taken place is due only to a shortfall in earnings by contractors for various reasons. We have pursued a definite policy of giving a somewhat higher measure of priority to materials needed for exports. The grave financial crisis under which we are labouring supplies more than sufficient explanation for this decision. We depend upon exports to purchase the imports of food and raw materials without which we can neither re-arm nor live as a solvent economic society.
The expenditure set forth in the White Paper on Defence, and the Estimates of the three Service Departments which will shortly be brought before the House, represent the utmost that we can do during the present year; and it is certainly much more than any other country in the free world, except the United States of America, has attempted.
I am not suggesting that it is sufficient for our safety in the event of war, and I rely on the rapidly growing and already overwhelming power of the United States in the atomic bomb to provide the deterrents against an act of aggression during the period of forming a defensive front in Western Europe. I hope and I believe that this will deter; but, of course, I cannot make promises or prophecies, or give guarantees. I accept

responsibility only for doing all that was possible, having regard to the state of our defences and economic position when, after an interval of more than six years, the Conservative Party resumed office 19 weeks ago.
My first impression on looking round the scene at home in November as Minister of Defence was a sense of extreme nakedness such as I had never felt before in peace or war—almost as though I was living in a nudist colony. When the 6th Armoured and the 3rd Infantry Divisions had left the country in pursuance of orders given or policies decided upon in the days of the late Administration, we had not a single Regular combat formation in the country; and although a seaborne invasion does not seem likely in view of our and Allied naval power in surface ships, I thought it right to take what precautions were possible against paratroop descents, and I spoke, as the House may remember, about the importance of our showing the back of a hedgehog rather than the paunch of a rabbit to any unfriendly eye that might contemplate our island from above.
There were at that time a quarter of a million—249,000 was the exact figure—of officers and men in depôts and training centres of many kinds. Most of these men, though uniformed British soldiers, had little combatant organisation or value. They were engaged in preparing and maintaining the considerable Forces which had been spread about the world. in Europe, Asia and Africa. I considered it imperative to impart a combatant value to this potentially powerful body of British soldiers costing at least £400 a year each. Rapid progress has been made with this policy. All these men are now supplied with rifles and machine guns and with ammunition, and they are organised into effective fighting groups which now comprise 502 mobile columns.
These Forces are not, indeed, of the efficiency of the units on the Continent and overseas. Nor do they need to be. They are capable of giving a good account of themselves and of imposing a considerable deterrent upon any airborne adventure by being able to kill or capture the ones who land. The process has been greatly strengthened by the sailors ashore and the Air Force ground


men, who also make important contributions. I am told by the weekly reports for which I called that morale is high, and that all ranks understand and have welcomed the reality and importance of their new duties, and that they like to feel that they are guarding their homes and their fellow countrymen as well as learning or teaching.
About two months ago, on the same line of thought, we started registration for the Home Guard. Since then 30,000 men have registered. This result is solid so far as it goes, but we still need many more volunteers. It may well be that many who have joined have felt that the likelihood of war has somewhat receded, and they think they can make up their minds later on. They must be careful not to leave it too late. If war should come, it will be with violent speed and suddenness, and here at home, with almost all our Regular Army overseas, we must rely to an unusual extent on the Home Guard. Enough resolute men must be armed and ready to aid all the other forms of protection against raids, descents and sabotage.
Although I had felt unable at first sight to provide the Home Guard with uniforms, and even with greatcoats or boots, I decided upon consideration to draw upon our mobilisation reserves to the extent necessary to clothe at least the first 50,000. My successor may do better later on. I have directed the War Office to place, as speedily as possible, all orders for which their Estimates provide in the coming year with the clothing trade, in which a certain amount of unemployment and under-employment, especially in Northern Ireland, had begun to appear.
Thirdly, we have been able, by a severe combing of the tail—not the tail I mentioned just now, but nevertheless a very desirable and necessary process—to produce seven more Regular second battalions of famous regiments which had been imprudently disbanded. I would not use the word "imprudently" if I had not long studied all the economic advantages of the Cardwell system, with a battalion abroad and a battalion at home, and an inter-flow of reserves and reinforcements between them. These battalions now raised, in one of which the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South

(Mr. Emrys Hughes) took so much interest—the Black, what was it?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Black Watch.

The Prime Minister: I thought it was the "Black Welsh." These will become effective units, and during the present autumn will give us at least a couple of Regular brigade groups to work with the numerous mobile columns I have already mentioned, and to go to any point of special danger in this island.
The expense involved in these changes is not great, and the gain in defensive and deterrent power resulting from them is out of all proportion to their cost in money. I hope the House will greet these measures with approval in that limited sphere of our dangers to which they are necessarily restricted. There is no doubt—honour where honour is due—that the Socialist policy of compulsory National Service in time of peace will enable Britain to create a much better and stronger Army than was ever possible before. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite need not look too unhappy about it. We supported the late Government in this important decision, including their last step of raising the term of service to two years. Of course, the fruits of such a system only mature gradually. The yearly production of more than 100,000 well-trained reservists, representing the highest physical qualities of British manhood, will not only give us reserves for the Regular Army on mobilisation of fine quality, but will also provide for the creation of a Territorial Army which, when mobilised, will be far superior in efficiency and readiness at the outbreak of war to anything that was previously possible.
The disturbed condition of the world compels us to maintain outside Europe the equivalent of nearly six Regular divisions, as well as the equivalent of five divisions, including three armoured divisions, which we now have on the Continent. As soon as a sufficiency of modernised equipment can be provided we shall have available for service abroad or at home a total of 22 divisions which are of a much more complex character than anything known in the late war, and a considerable proportion of which will be armoured.
In the Centurion tank we have what many good judges believe to be the best


tank now in service, and one which is in keen demand in Commonwealth and friendly countries. Not only is it of high military value, but it may also at times become a useful dollar-earning export. The plants which are being developed to make the Centurion tank will readily adapt themselves to the improved patterns which are on the way.
Before Christmas I spoke of the very heavy burden which distant foreign service throws upon our military organisation, and of the 30,000 men always in the pipe-line back and forth. A very real and important economy in the true sense would be introduced into our military system if we could increase the number of men serving for three or four years with the Colours. There is no question of our prolonging the compulsory term of military service, as was industriously suggested at the General Election by those who were enjoying our support in their military policy.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Who suggested it?

The Prime Minister: We have, however, started an active voluntary recruitment—

Mr. Morrison: Who said it?

The Prime Minister: I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not say this has not all been made clear to them.

Mr. Morrison: Who said it? The right hon. Gentleman, in telling his tale, has made an allegation. I am asking him who said this, and when?

The Prime Minister: We are very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman on his feet again. Much of the difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—much of the difficulty we are suffering from—

Mr. Morrison: Who said it?

The Prime Minister: Much of the difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have only a little time. Much of the difficulty we are suffering from—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Gentlemen require an answer they must keep silent for it.

The Prime Minister: Much of the difficulty we suffer from on these occasions

is that the leading men avoid making the charges, but a whispering campaign is started throughout the lower ranks and even the lowest ranks, which is a greater advantage to the statesmen who sit on the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Down in the mud again.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)  rose—

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to be drawn into an altercation with the hon. and learned Gentleman because it may not be generally known that his grandfather was the author of a very famous book to which I have always paid the most careful attention and in which he clears one of my forebears of a lot of disagreeable charges.
Everyone knows the kind of campaign which was run, suggesting that we intended to increase the length of National Service. [Interruption.] I am so glad to be able to excite a sense of shame. [Interruption.] We really must get back to the laborious administrative details to which I had hoped to confine myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell the truth."] Let me remind the House that we are not on any account going to increase the compulsory term. We have, however, started an active voluntary recruitment.

Mr. E. Shinwell: We started it.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to share any credit which can be found with the right hon. Gentleman, but I must always be careful not to pay him too many compliments because his friends below the Gangway call that fulsome, and he himself might easily ask me some rude questions to put himself on side.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman any rude questions. All that I am seeking to do is to ask him to give us the facts about this new measure for voluntary recruitment. I interjected to say that the right hon. Gentleman's Government did not start this. It was, in fact, started by the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman may make a song and dance about it, but I ask him just to tell the truth.

Mr. H. Morrison: Not again.

The Prime Minister: I have no desire to state anything but what is the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Nor do I intend to. I say we have, however, started—we, the British nation, have, however, started—an active voluntary recruitment with incentives in pay for short Regular engagements of three or four years, particularly designed to attract National Service men and those about to be called up. This is making good progress. In the Air Force about 43,000 young men have taken these engagements in the past two years. In the three months—the right hon. Gentleman talked about telling the truth and he may have a bit of it—since the Army opened a similar engagement, we have gained about 1,000 from serving National Service men, and over 8,000 from civil life.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Unemployment has been rising the whole time.

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to claim all the credit for this. Now the hon. Gentleman comes in to take it away from him.
The latter are young men who would otherwise have been called up for National Service in the near future. They were not expecting to be unemployed. They were expecting to be called up by conscription in the near future. Instead of being called up, they take on this long service and have beneficial pay. This is a most helpful development in our Army organisation, and really, one might say, worth its weight in gold when one thinks of the cost of moving men to and fro from here to Hong Kong. That is all I am going to say about the Army this afternoon.
When the Navy Estimates are introduced tomorrow, the First Lord will give a full account of the naval position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is not until tomorrow. Vote A at 147,000 is about the same as when I introduced the Navy Estimates of 1914. When I then introduced them it was 146,000. When I returned to the Admiralty at the beginning of the Second World War, Vote A was at 129,000. The growth of the Naval Air Arm more than accounts for the increase. As in the past, Vote A comprises mainly long-service men with valuable, important

high-class reserves—that great background and foundation of hereditary seamen, generations going back to generations, gathered round our great seaports and towns, furnishing us with a magnificent supply of youth, sustained by the tradition of their fathers.
The volume of new construction is, of course, less in tonnage than in 1914, and much less than in 1939. But whereas a ton of new construction for, let us say, destroyers—that very vital element—cost in 1914 £150 a ton and in 1939 £325 a ton, the present new construction, with all the improvements and apparatus vital to modern efficiency, and with all the decline in the purchasing power of money, costs £700 a ton—that is to say, nearly five times as much. The whole maintenance and organisation of the Royal Navy has also become vastly more complex and expensive than in former times. I am by no means satisfied with the progress so far made in pruning and purging. Nevertheless, the enormous increase in complexity is a dominating factor—I admit that.
There is, of course, no potentially hostile surface battle fleet afloat. The Russians have three old battleships, about 20 cruisers, and a considerable annual building programme; but all the surface navies which exist on the waters of the world are comprised and are being woven together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. As large vessels take a long time to build, it is not likely that this situation will be altered in, let us say, the next five years.
None the less, the Royal Navy has three main threats to meet, each of which, if successful, would affect our survival in this island. I will state them in their order of gravity as they affect us—the mine; the U-boat—for that is what I call potentially hostile submarines, distinguishing between a wicked weapon used for wrong purposes and the honourable use of the submarine in the ordinary course of naval business; it is a good thing to separate them—[Interruption.]—I thought that would appeal to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—and the threat from the air, ever-growing in its shore-based power.
It is upon improving and augmenting our resources to withstand these threats that our new construction and research


of all kinds is in fact concentrated. Anti-mine and anti-U-boat measures absorb the overwhelming proportion of our new construction and material development. They also dominate our training, which includes constant anti-U-boat and minesweeping exercises. Here we also welcome the new shore mine-watching forces now being raised from men in civilian rig, who may well be as valuable to the Royal Navy and to the life of the island as are sailors afloat.
The House, I feel, may be assured that when the new frigates and minesweepers come into service they will be a proof of the perennial British ability to produce novel designs of high performance. From all that I have been able to learn and understand as a member of the Institution of Naval Architects—[Laughter.]—honorary, of course; I have made a few suggestions from time to time—I think the constructive Department of the Admiralty are entitled to take pride in their inventiveness and modernity.
The difficulty is not only design or quality in these spheres of anti-U-boat and anti-mine warfare. It is numbers that count, and every improvement, however necessary, in speed or apparatus is the enemy of numbers. I think that progress is being made on right lines in what are necessarily reconciliations of opposing needs. I spoke just now about the threat from the air. This threat, of course, cuts both ways, and the important fleet of aircraft carriers which already exists and is developing, as well as the expanding range of shore-based aircraft, is a vital factor in coping with mining and U-boat attack.
However, do not let anyone suppose that the problems have been solved or that these two dangers—the mines and the U-boat—present themselves in a less fateful form to us, or less important to the United States, than at the beginning of the Second World War. On the contrary, the dangers are greater, and the means of coping with them by rapid improvisations of civilian craft, like yachts and trawlers, are no longer effective against the new fast U-boat types, of which, however, the Soviets have, happily, at present only a few.
Our aircraft carrier fleet is also a powerful defence. The newest aircraft carrier has just now come into service.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What did it cost?

The Prime Minister: It bears the name of the "Eagle," descended from her original namesake, commissioned in the first Elizabethan era.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What did it cost?

The Prime Minister: I shall be revealing no technical secrets if I say that the design and construction of the new "Eagle" are of a very different kind from those of her ancestor, for fashions have changed in all sorts of ways in this as in other spheres. The expense is no doubt very much greater.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It cost £15 million.

The Prime Minister: Why make these attacks upon the Front Bench opposite? Surely the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South, might leave to the Government the necessary task of defending themselves against the Opposition instead of making this flank attack upon his right hon. Friend who formerly represented the Admiralty in this House. To spend £15 million on an aircraft carrier—good gracious; fancy if the Tories had done a thing like that!
I now come to the third great Service. It is our air power which causes me the most anxiety. Deliveries of modern aircraft are seriously behind the original programme, which, in consequence, has had to be revised. As the result, the Air Force, though maintaining its size, is not being re-equipped with modern machines as rapidly as it should be.
Our greatest need is for modern aircraft in the squadrons. For example, we have no swept-back wing fighters in service, such as the American F.86 and the Russian M.I.G.15. It is true, as the leader of the Opposition said in our debate last December, that it is not unnatural in this competition of types for one nation temporarily to outstep its rivals. It is rather unfortunate, however, if war should come at a moment when the enemy has a great advantage in modernity. It is not a good arrangement to have the highest class of air pilots and all the personal staffs required and for them to have only second-best weapons to fight with.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I prefer to deal with this in my own way. The problem of when to change from existing production to an improved type is not a new one. It has occurred in all countries during the increasingly rapid improvement of weapons in the last hundred years. It has never occurred with the same significance as in the air forces, which must always be to some extent in a state of flux.
I recognise the difficulty of the position, but the late Government, who are so critical in their anticipations of our ability, certainly did not produce good solutions. Here, as in other spheres, our inheritance leaves much to be desired. It is now that decisions taken soon after the war press upon us. If, indeed, all that was then forecast had come to pass, our problems would be simpler, but the appearance of the M.I.G.15 in Russian squadrons in 1949, which the Russians now have in great numbers, marked a considerable advance in aeronautical design. This has falsified many predictions.
The ordering of new types off the drawing board, with all the risks that attend such decisions, can help in part but cannot itself fill the gap, which is too large for safety. This gap now faces us as a consequence of estimates which events have now disproved.
We are making great efforts to advance the production of the new Hawker fighter and also of the Swift, another first-class aeroplane designed to fill the same day-interceptor role. These types are much newer than the Soviet M.I.G.15, but I must make it clear that we shall not have in the Service in the near future, or, indeed, for some time, anything like adequate numbers of these superior modern fighters. It will require intense exertions to build up production to the necessary level, and also to gain and keep a lead in design.
I have directed that super-priority should be given to the production of the latest and best types of fighter aircraft. This does not mean that everything else is to be knocked about in their exclusive interest. The assertion of priorities, without the necessary refinements of application, might well be most injurious to production as a whole. I have seen undue assertion of priorities do harm in both

world wars. The whole subject is far better understood now than it was even during the last war, and in this light I affirm that the first need of our defence is the re-arming of the Royal Air Force with weapons worthy of their daring and skill.
The expansion of the number of aircraft in the front line of the Royal Air Force, or the improvement in their quality, must not mean an equal increase in its overall manpower. A longer period of training is, however, now necessary, not only for pilots and navigators but for some of the technical ground trades. The training organisation of the Royal Air Force to produce in good time the necessary men is advancing. The response to the new trade structure, which was introduced a year ago and designed to offer a career with proper opportunities of advancement, has so far met with a most promising response. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), whose father I knew so well, will be very gratified, as he was responsible for that.
As I said in reply to a Question a few days ago, the other Commonwealth countries are kept informed of the defence plans of the United Kingdom and are consulted whenever any of our commitments are likely to be of particular concern to them.
Canada is, of course, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But we must make sure that our contacts grow ever closer. The House will welcome the announcement made recently by the Canadian Minister of National Defence that, as part of the North Atlantic system of mutual help, we are to receive in due course from Canada a number of high-class fighter aircraft. F.86 is the label given to them. The frames will be made in Canada, the engines in America and the Royal Air Force will fly them. These aircraft will be a welcome addition to our strength at home and in Europe.—[Interruption.]—I think I said that the negotiations were begun under the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: And they were completed, if I may say so.

The Prime Minister: May I not share with him in this event? It is far from me to wish to grasp any credit from anyone. Not even the late Foreign Secretary will say that I wish to rob him of any claim of his share in foreign affairs.
The Prime Minister of Australia has today announced to the Australian Parliament at Canberra that his Government have decided to send a fighter wing to the Middle East to operate with the Royal Air Force in that area. The wing will consist of two squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force and should be ready to leave Australia for the Middle East next June. The actual station of the wing in the area will be decided later on. One possibility is Cyprus.
I know that I shall be expressing the views of all parties in the House when I say that we warmly welcome this further practical contribution by Australia to the defence of the free world and of the interests of the British Commonwealth. We shall be very glad to have these Australian squadrons working with us in the task of defending the Middle East against external aggression should any occur.
I have not attempted this afternoon to deal either with the general problem of European defence or the still wider issues represented by what I think we have got sufficiently habituated to call N.A.T.O. We shall have a debate at the end of the month when the fruitful outcome of the Lisbon Conference and other questions larger than those comprised in the White Paper can be discussed.
But I should like before I sit down, if the House will permit me, to repeat in substance what I said before upon the reason why I do not believe that war is imminent or inevitable, and why I believe that we have more time, if we use it wisely, and more hope of warding off that frightful catastrophe from our struggling, ill-informed, bewildered and almost helpless human race.
I am glad to find that the words I used two years ago in this House still express my thoughts. This is what I said:
There never was a time when the deterrents against war were so strong. If penalties of the most drastic kind can prevent in our civil life crime or folly, then we certainly have them here on a gigantic scale in the affairs of nations … The penalties have grown to an extent undreamed of; and at the same time, many of the old incentives which were

the cause of the beginning of so many wars, or features in their beginning, have lost their significance. The desire for glory, booty, territory, dynastic or national aggrandisement; hopes of a speedy and splendid victory with all its excitement—and they are all temptations from which even those which only fight for righteous causes are not always exempt—are now superseded by a preliminary stage of measureless agony from which neither side could at present protect itself.
Another world war would begin by both sides suffering as the first step what they dread most. Western Europe would be overrun and Communised…On the other hand, at the same time, Soviet cities, air fields, oil fields and railway junctions would be annihilated; with possible complete disruption of Kremlin control over the enormous populations who are ruled from Moscow. Those fearful cataclysms would be simultaneous, and neither side could at present, or for several years to come, prevent them. Moralists may find it a melancholy thought that peace can find no nobler foundations than mutual terror. But for my part, I shall be content if these foundations are solid, because they will give us the extra time and the new breathing space for the supreme effort which has to be made for a world settlement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 197–198.]
That is what I said two years ago, that is what I am not ashamed to repeat here now.
I thank the House for its courtesy and kindness to me. The interruptions which have occurred will not be deprived of the plea that they were unprovoked, for we have our own system of public business and of discussing our affairs across the Floor of the House while dealing with grave matters.
In conclusion, the House will realise that I cannot claim that the estimates and schemes presented in the White Paper go as far as the proposals of the Socialist Government. This is partly due to physical causes, which invariably delay large re-armament programmes, but it is also due to the present Cabinet's decisions to increase the emphasis on exports at the expense of the speed of the re-armament programme.
The motives which inspired the Leader of the Opposition, the former Minister of Defence, and the Service Ministers of those days, to embark upon this great scheme of re-armament, are creditable to their military zeal, but it was a scheme loosely and hastily framed and declared, and only five months intervened between the £3,600 million plan and its being superseded by that of £4,700 million. Moreover, they did not take sufficient


account of the serious financial situation into which they were moving and of which we are today the anxious legatees. It is a curious commentary on British politics that it should fall to a Conservative Government in the face of dire financial stress to have to reduce or slow down the military defence programme and expenditure on which the Socialist Government had embarked and to which they had committed the nation.
We must, however, be governed by realities, and while trying our utmost to carry out the programme we must not mislead the country into expectations beyond what its life energies can fulfil.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: If the Prime Minister had dealt in rather more detail with the structure and purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, apart from the European Defence Community aspects which could be debated another day, instead of indulging in a sustained sneer against the late Government, it might have been more to the national advantage.
I take note, to begin with, of the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman to render assistance in dealing with the tail of the Labour Party. Nobody knows more about the tail end of a political party than does the right hon. Gentleman. I had the fortune, for a considerable number of years, to listen to him when he sat in the corner seat below the Gangway on the Government side—but that was only his geographical position. Nobody more bitterly attacked and castigated the Baldwin and Chamberlain Governments about their inadequate defence measures, preceding the last war, than did the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he was refuted repeatedly by right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench and frequently by hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him. It was the most mischievous and malicious tail that has ever been waggled in this House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be on the horns of a dilemma. If he is not careful he might become impaled on either or both of them. Let him have a care. What he has been saying is, in effect, "I ask the House to accept the White Paper on defence. I

commend it to hon. Members because, after all, it is only a narrative of the defence activities of the late Government." While asking for approval for the defence White Paper—to which he is unable to take any exception whatever, be it noted—he seeks to make political capital out of the fact that the late Government sought to promote adequate defence in the interests of the nation. I should like to know which leg the right hon. Gentleman stands on.
I have a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman has reached the stage when his primary concern is to seek to cause a cleavage in the ranks of the Labour Party. He need not concern himself unduly about matters of that sort. We can handle any differences. Let the right hon. Gentleman concern himself with certain elements in his own party. For a long time he has disliked many of his colleagues, and for a long time they have equally disliked him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]
Hon. Gentlemen ask me to name them. I do not know what the Prime Minister really thinks of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), who sits beside him and who has just been appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence—the only justification for which appointment can be that the right hon. Gentleman has conceived hatred for the Labour Party which the hon. Gentleman has expressed over and over again, and that if there is any need for vituperation the hon. Member for Flint, West, has all the experience that is necessary. We want no assistance from the right hon. Gentleman at all.
Moreover, nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, malicious and offensive as he has been, and mischievous as his remarks were—and they were intended to be such—would prevent this party—because it has already made up its mind—from pursuing the path it set itself when the Government was formed in 1945; that is, among other things in the international sphere, that where there is tension, unsettlement and the possibility of aggression, to promote adequate measures of defence.
I want to make it quite clear where the Labour Party stand in this matter, though I have not prepared a speech. Indeed, after the speech to which we have


just listened no preparation was necessary. I am bound to say that I have frequently heard the right hon. Gentleman speak, and it seems to me that he is deteriorating rapidly. When he is left with nothing to say about the substance of the matter, he seeks to attack the late Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "What will you do?"] Hon. Members will see what I shall do before I have finished. Let me add that their jeering and laughter will not affect me in the least. I shall say what I want to say in spite of them all.
I shall state briefly the position of the Labour Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which party?"] I have committed it to writing for purposes of accuracy. The Labour Party hate war as much as the Tory Party, and a great deal more.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: No, we will not stand for that; it is not true.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: A lie.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I heard the word "lie." It should be withdrawn.

Mr. Lindsay: On your instructions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Warmongers.

Captain Robert Ryder: On a point of order. In view of the very offensive remark which has just been made, surely the hon. Gentleman should be asked to withdraw?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If anything offensive has been said, I shall ask for it to be withdrawn.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: There was a cry of "warmongering" again.

Mr. Shinwell: I repeat what I said, that the Labour Party hate war as much as—

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order. Is it right for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to say that every person on these benches is a warmonger?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear that remark.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. Member has reiterated that remark.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear the remark complained of, but hon. Members will perhaps remember that it is disorderly to say anything while seated.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Further to that point of order. Having sat in this House for many years you will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that such remarks as that were common before the last war and that they came from the other side. Is it unparliamentary to use that expression?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Anything I hear which is unparliamentary I shall ask to be withdrawn.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to find hon. Members opposite so sensitive. When I think of what they used to say about Service Ministers and myself, it is really going a bit too far. After all, this is not a tea party with the dear vicar in the chair, as the ex-Father of the House said on one occasion. We can afford to say things about each other without regarding them as being unduly offensive. However, if hon. Members opposite are very sensitive, we will do our best to cater to their requirements. [Interruption.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stop interrupting in that inaudible fashion? If he has an intelligent remark to make, let him get up and I will yield to him. He sits there muttering to himself and, what is more, smirking and grinning all over his face as if he is enjoying himself hugely. I understood that this was a serious debate to which he believes he has made a serious contribution. We will see before the end of my speech if that is so.
In view of the tension in world affairs and acts of aggression, and pending the settlement of international disputes by diplomatic means, we must take effective measures to protect the United Kingdom against attack. That is the position of this party. We deplore the burden of armaments and we demand that the burden shall be shared equitably by the people of this country and, finally, that the cost of defence must not be used as an excuse to weaken our social services. That is our position. I do not pretend for a moment that it would be possible to build up adequate defence to meet all


our defence requirements without imposing some burdens on the community, but we ought to exercise great caution in this regard.
Having made the position of, at any rate, the majority of the Labour Party clear—[Laughter.] What is amusing about that? It is common ground that in the Labour Party and, indeed, outside the Labour Party, there are people who are known as pacifists, who not only hate war, as we all do, but who will have no art or part in it. That we have recognised. These differences of opinion have existed over a long period, but when men and women have genuine convictions about pacifism, is it any reason why we should complain? We accept them as men and women with honest convictions. There is no reason why we should deny either their existence or the fact that they differ fundamentally from the policy of their party, at any rate as regards defence.
Now I want to come to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman because, as I have said, he said hardly anything about the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I want to say to him that, apart from building up adequate defence in this country, the crux of the defence problem is the structure, organisation and purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman did not take serious exception to what had been done by the late Government as regards the building up of divisions. He said that the Government were now attempting to create small mobile Forces which might be used for the purposes of home defence, but all that was considered by the Ministry of Defence and the Service Departments many months ago. The right hon. Gentleman also told us about the need for producing the most modern type of aircraft and that we agree.
We know of the difficulties that are encountered in this matter. There is research over a long period, then there is development, then there are modifications in designs and, last but not least—and this is one of the real problems—there is the difficulty of the aircraft manufacturers in organising the industry in such a fashion as to be able to deal speedily with production on a mass scale. That is a matter to which we must address ourselves.
That apart, however, the defence of this country, in peace-time at any rate, is in better state and better heart than ever it has been before. The right hon. Gentleman can challenge that if he likes. Take, for example, the number of divisions. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he came to the Ministry of Defence he felt himself to be in a condition of nudity. Apparently he was not satisfied with what he heard and saw around him. Let me tell him the true facts. We have practically 11 divisions overseas—

The Prime Minister: I was talking of those at home.

Mr. Shinwell: I will come to what we have at home in a minute. In addition to having practically 11 divisions overseas, we have practically five in Europe, we have three in the Middle East, we have practically three in the Far East and we have garrisons in various parts of the world, as hon. Members are well aware. What is more, we have met every one of our commitments. In particular, we have met our commitments to General Eisenhower. He has never complained at any time about the fulfilment of the promises that were made many months ago in connection with the build up of Forces in the West.
When we had the recent trouble in Egypt, it was possible for the War Office to organise an infantry division and send them out speedily. It was thought at the time that there was no strategic reserve in this country, and hon. Members opposite—I am not sure that the present Secretary of State for War was not one of them—complained that we had no strategic reserves here. Yet when the trouble blew up and became acute, we were able to send an infantry division out there and, for the most part, to fly them in. At any rate, we experienced no great difficulty in this matter. That was an achievement, and in so far as we require defence I claim that the position was far more satisfactory than ever before in peace-time, and certainly much more satisfactory than hon. Members opposite pretend.
Yet complaint after complaint—and, indeed, abuse—was levelled against the Service Ministers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right, too."] We are told, "Quite right, too." In view of that, I venture upon a few quotations. It is


just as well that the House should know where we stand. I have prepared a few quotations—as it happens, out of the mouths of hon. Members opposite and their friends.
What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He started off in March last year:
Should there be an immense re-armament? We say 'yes' but, if so, are the Ministers who now have it in hand, having regard to their proved incapacity, the ones to be trusted with it?
Then he added, in October:
I have little confidence in the capacity of these Ministers. Personally, I am quite sure that better value could be got for the immense manpower and sums of money involved.
Let us take the organiser of the Tory Party at the last Election, Lord Woolton. Referring to myself, he said:
Mr. Shinwell seems to have thrown himself into the job with some vigour, but I cannot find he has thrown anything else except himself into the job. I have been making inquiries up and down the country. I cannot find there has been any great burst of activity in the ordering of weapons of war.
The Minister of Supply provided the answer. He came to our assistance right away—quite unwittingly, of course. Perhaps, if he had known what he was about to say, and did say, he would have hesitated, because this is what he said on the same subject:
During the 12 months up to the end of September"—
not October, but September, starting in September, 1950, and ending in 1951—
the total value of the re-armament contracts placed by the Ministry of Supply"—
under our auspices—
was approximately £1,000 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 9.]
What is the use of pretending that we were not engaged in preparing for adequate defence?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be breaking his hon. Friend's heart.

Mr. Shinwell: Note what the right hon. Gentleman does. He says that I will break the heart of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I shall not do anything of the sort. My hon. Friend understands the right hon. Gentleman sometimes better than he understands himself, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can make a

better and more vigorous impression on my hon. Friend than he presently is doing, he is deceiving himself.
Then we had one of the subordinate Members of the Government in the other place, who said:
The Socialist Party's effort to deal with re-armament can be described as fumbling bewilderment.
That was immediately answered by a Senator in the United States who, according to the "Daily Telegraph",
praised Britain's effort while expressing disappointment with Europe as a whole. 'The British', he said, 'ought to be commended for their effort with the little they have to work with'.
Following upon that, we have the speech—

The Prime Minister: Rather ambiguous.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman regards it as ambiguous, let me give him reply on the same subject by Mr. Averil Harriman, who said:
Britain, the largest industrial country in Europe, had moved the fastest in placing arms orders.
What more do hon. Members want—except, of course, the speech by the right hon. Gentleman's Foreign Secretary at Columbia University. This was not long after the party opposite came into power. They did not have to wait long, for immediately the Foreign Secretary said:
I would remind you of a few facts.
He told our American friends:
Apart from the bitter struggle which we are waging in Malaya and our contribution to the United Nations Forces in Korea, apart from the substantial Force which we have to keep in the Middle East in the interests of common defence, we have the largest armoured Force on the Continent of Europe of any of the Atlantic Powers.
What more evidence do we want than that, that the previous Government did the right thing? The right hon. Gentleman is only sorry that we did so, because he cannot indulge in another complaint against us.
Now, I come to the question of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is much more important. Later, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will move an Amendment to the Motion and he will justify, as, eventually, I shall do very briefly, the reason for that Amendment. The right hon.


Gentleman has been running around sometimes chasing his own tail on the question of defence. Take, for example, the question of the Atlantic admiral. He could not make up his mind about that. Now, the Americans have made up his mind for him. Take the British rifle. He could not make up his mind about that, and now he has yielded to American influence.
I remember the right hon. Gentleman speaking from this Box some considerable time ago and saying, "The Americans ought not to have control of the Atlantic. There ought to be a different set-up, but I agree that we ought to yield to them so far as the command of naval forces in the Mediterranean is concerned." The fact is that as a result of the gyrations of the right hon. Gentleman, the Americans have got both: they have the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. What confidence can there be in a Prime Minister and a Government like that?
What is more, we all recall how the right hon. Gentleman said that he approved the defence measures of the Labour Government but for the fact—and this disturbed him unduly—that we had thrown a spanner into the works by promoting iron and steel nationalisation. He said, "How can you go on with defence measures when you have this important legislative Measure coming before the House of Commons, disturbing the iron and steel industry?"
What is the position now? Now, when the right hon. Gentleman commends the defence activities of the Labour Government and asks us to approve the White Paper, which is just a record of the Labour Government's achievements, he is going to throw a spanner into the works by promoting the de-nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. That is the way to muck about with defence. How can there be confidence in a Government of that kind?
Moreover, let me make it quite plain that we do not like this Government, anyhow. What possible confidence can we have in them? Take, for example, the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Government was formed—not that they had the largest number of votes in the country, but do not let us harp too much on that. He decided to be

Minister of Defence and when he looked round he said,"Well, I cannot do this job myself, I shall have to look for somebody else." So what did he do? He looked along that Treasury Bench and turned away in sheer disgust. Then he looked at those on the back benches behind him and they frightened him even more. He discovered he could not appoint someone to this important post from among the ranks of the Tory Party, so bankrupt are they in intellect and energy and all the qualities required for a position of this kind.
So the right hon. Gentleman went outside and appointed a military gentleman, against whom, naturally, we offer no criticism. But I venture the opinion that it may probably demonstrate the fact that it is not always appropriate to have at the head of the Ministry of Defence, dealing with the Chiefs-of-Staff, somebody who is more experienced in strategy and who is likely to impose his will on the people with whom he has to co-operate.
Then he appointed the hon. Member for Flint, West, as Parliamentary Secretary. What are his functions to be? Is he to deal with strategy? Heaven help us. I shall not say anything more about that because we shall have to deal with the hon. Member as occasion requires; and we shall deal with him faithfully, make no mistake about that.
Let us look at the situation in Europe. Great Britain is playing its part; no one can complain about that. Recently we had a conference at Lisbon—of all places. I have taken part in almost all the conferences over the past 20 months. We are entitled to ask our colleagues in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to play their part equally with ourselves. We pressed them over and over again, but what is the position? Take Portugal; they do not contribute a single soldier, and, as far as I know, not a single gun. Iceland we can rule out. Norway and Denmark, small blame to them, can make a very small contribution. They might do better if they were provided with equipment. They have not the manpower. The Netherlands—again, it is no discredit to them—are quite unable to build up an adequate force and I doubt at the present time if the Netherlands Government are in a position to contribute more than a brigade to General Eisenhower's headquarters.
What about the Belgians? Many months ago we were promised three divisions, but there is nothing like that. Let us look at the facts and know where we stand in this matter. We ought not to mislead the public here or elsewhere about the position of N.A.T.O. in view of extravagant statements made at Lisbon and repeated in this House.
What is the position of France? I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members that nearly 18 months ago, when M. Pleven was Defence Minister in France, he promised 10 divisions last year and 15 divisions this year. Now they are talking about a possible 12 divisions by the end of this year. We all know that if the war is continued in Indo-China, making severe demands on French manpower and equipment, it is quite impossible for the French to build up anything like 12 divisions by the end of this year. They have only five divisions and I doubt very much if they are battle-worthy.
What is the position? This country is making a larger contribution than any other country. We accept the burden, but we are entitled to say to the other nations concerned, "When are you going to play your part?" Let us not forget that they have the manpower, if they could organise it as they were urged to do, not only by our people associated with General Eisenhower, but by the French generals. They have been advised over and over again about the length of National Service and how to operate it under modern conditions. They have long experience of conscription but they have not adapted themselves to National Service under modern conditions. If they had done that they would be in a much stronger position.
What about equipment? Here I come to what I think is the substance of the whole problem. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the provision of aircraft. For example, he mentioned, and I agree with him—I think everyone of this side of the House agrees with him—that we must provide priority for the air. Of course, we must have regard to the submarine menace, anti-submarine devices and provision of corvettes and the like and we have to have our land formations, but there must be priority in the air. We sought to undertake that task all along while we were in the Government.
What is the difficulty there? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned provision by the Canadians of the F.86's. More than 12 months ago we had negotiations with the American Government and Canadians—[HON. MEMBERS: "What happened?"] I will tell hon. Members what the trouble was. I shall be glad to—not glad, because there is nothing to be glad about. The Canadians were very willing to produce the air frames, but the engines were produced in the United States of America and they have not been supplied yet. That is the trouble.
I come to what I think is the real trouble in the matter of production. In the question of production, unless in France and Belgium and it may be in Portugal and in the Scandinavian countries associated with N.A.T.O. and possibly now in Turkey and Greece—who, by the way, will be making demands on the pool of equipment because they have come into N.A.T.O. and every time a new country comes into N.A.T.O. it makes the position more difficult and creates more problems—unless the United States can provide a larger volume of equipment, and provide it quickly, there is no hope of building up anything like 50 divisions this year, or next year, or, may be, the year after.
There is controversy as to whether we should seek military aid from the United States. My view is that we ought to accept military aid from the United States without any strings attached. So far, in my recollection, when we have received some assistance in this respect from the United States they have never attached any conditions, nor ought they to. The United States is a partner, of course a very strong partner—the strongest partner of all—in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but she happens to possess vast resources, resources which we can never equal in this country, nor can any other country associated with N.A.T.O.
Unless the United States speeds up production and is willing to render more military assistance in the form of equipment of all kinds, I can see no hope of N.A.T.O. fulfilling the promises made last year and which have been made this year in relation to the building up of divisions and the like.
Now I come to the position at home. I do not know whether the Minister of Supply will be able to tackle the question


of the provision of aircraft in this country. The difficulty, I know, is sometimes materials and sometimes manpower, but the real bottleneck is the difficulty experienced in persuading the aircraft manufacturers to play their full part. It may be said that they are doing their best and that they have difficulties.
I think that better organisation is needed and I am bound to say that it may be that some day the Minister of Supply will have to recommend to his Government that, in order to speed up the provision of aircraft, he may have to take them over. I am not complaining of private enterprise in the aircraft industry, but we cannot afford to wait very much longer for those aircraft, more particularly in view of the lag that exists and the need for providing equipment for some other friendly countries, for example the Commonwealth countries.
It is sometimes assumed that the Commonwealth countries are making a very effective contribution to defence. They are doing nothing of the sort. I deplore it. I presided over the Commonwealth Defence Conference, and I know what the difficulty was there. It was one, of equipment. South Africa, for example, wanted equipment; Australia was prepared to play its part if it got the necessary equipment, and the same applied to New Zealand. They were all shouting for equipment. Unless we can step up production of equipment in this country and at the same time get more from the United States, I see no hope of building up adequate defences. That is the position.
I have said already that we deplore the need for defence. We regard it as a regrettable necessity. We hope that no unnecessary burdens will be imposed on the community as a result of these defence measures. We take note of the fact that the Government have reduced the amount required for defence this year. The right hon. Gentleman seems to regard it as going one better than the Labour Government because a reduced amount is available for defence. I do not know whether the Government will be able to spend the £1,400 million this year; we cannot tell. I doubt if they can, but they ought to.
My view is that it is a mistake to prolong the agony. If the Government

are able to carry out our re-arming and promote their defence measures adequately over a shorter period, it is far better to do so than to prolong it over a longer period. It is far better to finish with it as quickly as possible, though, of course, there is continual re-equipment, maintenance and the like, which costs money.
I am not sure that the Government are capable of spending the £1,400 million this year. There must be better organisation of manpower. I am bound to say that when the Minister of Labour was speaking the other day on the subject of manpower, there was no evidence whatever that he understood the rudiments of the problem. There must be a switch-over from civil production to defence production. Provided that the Government can do these things, even to the extent of taking over some of the industries associated with defence production, I think it is possible for us to make an even more effective contribution to the defence of the West than we have already made.
The late Labour Government do not intend to apologise for what they did in the sphere of defence. We did it because we believed in it, though at the same time we had no enthusiasm for it—that was natural. We did it because we believed that in the circumstances it was the proper thing to do. I say sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman that I deplore the fact that he should have taken this occasion to sneer at the Labour Government for what they did, and to make political capital out of it. What he ought to have done was to commend the activities of the Labour Government in that respect fairly and squarely and honestly, instead of making what I regard as a most dishonest speech.

5.14 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: The speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), entertaining as his speeches always are, contained a particularly amusing feature at the end, when he suggested that my right hon. Friend should have stopped sneering at the previous Government and have paid some tribute to them. I doubt whether any Prime Minister in the history of this country has ever gone out of his way to pay compliments to his predecessors in the way that


my right hon. Friend has done. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might be a little more generous in giving credit where credit is due, as the Prime Minister has constantly done. However, I do not wish to detain the House with the peculiarities of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. We are all accustomed to them. They have good entertainment value, if nothing else.
I wish briefly to refer to one aspect of the Statement on Defence which we are considering today. I hope that in this country, through the medium of this House and otherwise, we may think seriously of what is in the world today which will make for efficient defence against the threat to all countries outside the Iron Curtain. We have in the British Empire, which is still, in spite of its faults, the finest example of government in freedom and justice that the world has ever known, a foundation for defence spread over the world which is second to none.
The actual cornerstone of that Empire, however, is this little island—the United Kingdom—but I do not think that it is often realised by the people of this country—I say this with great respect—that this little group of islands by themselves are in the most deadly dangerous position from the point of view of attack. By itself, the United Kingdom is probably one of the weakest entities in the world. That is why I am so fundamentally opposed to dividing Scotland from England. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland together are in an extremely weak position by themselves, but if the cornerstone of the Empire were split by dividing them still further, the weakness would only be increased. The United Kingdom by itself would be in the gravest possible danger; and if, similarly, New Zealand or Australia were by themselves they would be in deadly danger.
But if they are all together, working as one corporate whole, as the Empire, one begins to see the foundation of a truly great world-wide defence system. It is most important that we should emphasise to the utmost of our ability the necessity for all these countries, large and small, which go to make up the Empire and Commonwealth, getting together on every possible occasion to discuss ways and means, however difficult, of meeting our liabilities in the world.
If this Empire and the great sphere of influence it covers can be united in treaty form with the area covered by the United States and with such measure of European unity as we can hope to achieve, and if these three together play their full part, standing together and all prepared to fight together, which God grant we shall never have to do, we shall have such a force for peace in this world that not even the great slave State of Russia will think it worth while to attack it. Then peace may come in our time and in our grandchildren's time too, which is the aim and object of every one of us.
In Section VI of the Statement on Defence, headed
Co-operation within the Commonwealth and with other countries
which the Prime Minister lightly touched on, there is one line which I should like to read and refer to. It is stated in paragraph 60:
A continuous exchange of views and information"—
that is since June, when there was a conference—
has since been maintained at all levels between the various Governments.
That is a reference to the Governments of the Commonwealth and Empire. I hope that we shall get a great deal more than merely an exchange of information and views. What is wanted is an exchange of practical plans for re-equipment. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the real bugbear of the whole defence problem is the shortage of equipment.
We need to get down to brass tacks in a practical way as between Heads of Governments, or Defence Ministers, or at all events the Governments of all parts of the Empire, large and small. Then, I hope, we shall be able to see the picture of defence in the world as the great picture it is and escape from the almost inevitably limited outlook which some of us have in looking at our little problems as if they were separate from those of the rest of the world.
I do not wish to go into any details, but I beg the House and the country to regard this matter from the widest possible viewpoint, and to realise that this little island in which we live is the corner-stone of the whole thing. By itself it is intensely weak, but with the


other agencies to which I have referred, particularly the great British Empire, it can be the greatest source for defending peace, the immediate object of everyone in our world today.

5.20 p.m.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in the line he has taken, although we on this side of the House, and I am sure everyone else, agree with his view that the co-operation of the Dominions—and I would go further and say of the Colonies—is essential to knit together a defence organisation of strength and stability. I hope that the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite who represent the appropriate Departments are already giving that matter particular attention.
I wish to speak more on the air side than anything else in this matter of defence. It is becoming abundantly clear to us that if we were to be sufficiently strong in arms, men and material throughout the world, in all the areas in which there may be difficulties, problems and aggression, it would very probably lead eventually to economic collapse at home. To my mind the urgent problem is, therefore, to find the most economical method of achieving that state of defence which we all know is absolutely necessary.
The word which the Prime Minister used—and I am sure it was used also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), although I was not present during the whole of his speech—the word "deterrent," is one which will be used for the rest of the day. I think it is a good word in this matter of defence. The wars in Korea and Malaya, serious as they are, do not in themselves strain our man-power or materials or resources, or our economy. We have had wars on a comparable scale in the last century. I am speaking of things as they are now and not as they may be. The strain from which we shall suffer, and have already commenced to suffer, is from the building up of an Army for Western Europe at the same time as we are endeavouring to build up a strong Air Force and, least but not last, a strong Navy.
I confess that I am not so much interested in winning the next war as in preventing it, and it is in the assessment of our Armed Forces as a preventive against war that I am interested. I think that should be our first consideration. Although we do not seem to talk about it very openly, we know, both in this House and in the country, that we are talking of one potential enemy only, that is, the Soviet. We have to decide what is likely to be the greatest deterrent to Soviet aggression.
Is it a strong naval force? I am not trying to over-simplify this matter but I wish to put it in my own way. Naval forces cannot injure Russia or any country behind the Iron Curtain; and none of these countries in the Soviet bloc about which we are speaking depend on their imports for survival. So as an aggressive instrument I suggest that for the moment the Navy can be discounted.
What about the Army? Here I suggest that the position is different. The Army could invade and devastate Russia, and therefore a powerful Army could be considered a serious deterrent. But it must be powerful, both in numbers and in arms. An army numerically inferior to that of Russia cannot therefore be regarded as a satisfactory answer. We know that is the position, and we have been given figures which show that for many years ahead a European Army will be ridiculously inferior numerically to the Soviet bloc armies.
I recognise that at the Lisbon Conference of the N.A.T.O. the figure of 50 divisions was mentioned as being ready in Europe this year, but frankly I do not accept that as a reasonable proposition. There is not yet in France the spirit to make the necessary personal sacrifices without which the raising of such an army is quite impossible. This leads me to believe that an army in Europe is not a deterrent to war today, and will not be for many years ahead.
I must make it clear that I am not suggesting that we do not require a Navy or an Army. What I am suggesting is that neither the Army nor the Navy can fulfil its vital role of being a deterrent at the moment, and I make no apology for continually using that word "deterrent." They cannot retaliate in a manner powerful enough to persuade


Russia that it would be unprofitable to wage war.
What, then, can provide this deterrent? I suggest that at present it is only the air arm which can do that. That is the only arm which can inflict immediate punishment on the Soviet, or the Russian peoples should they decide to wage war. Our first consideration must be the Air Force as an aggressive force; it must be the aggressive side of the Air Force and not its defensive role.
I am sorry that the last Government did not appear to take this view. Much of the orthodox thinking of the past must go by the board, and this problem must be approached from an entirely new angle. We must free ourselves from the unduly weighty influence of admirals and generals. I am not fanatically air-minded, although I spent many years in the Air Force. Before I was in the Army, and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire may be glad to know that in the 1914–18 war I served in the infantry in a Scots battalion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In the Black Watch? I knew there was something about the hon. Member.

Group Captain Wilcock: Not the Black Watch. I do, therefore, have sympathy with the claims of the Army and indeed I should like to see a powerful Army—and Navy and Air Force—and then we could all sleep in peace. But we cannot have that; we cannot afford it. Therefore, I press the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to consider this urgent and important problem of how best to use the limited money and resources we have to obtain the protection we want today unbiased by past considerations.
Our present position in the air is alarming—there is no other word for it. It is absolutely alarming. I divulge no secrets when I say that we have lagged behind in the matter of bombers. With few bombers we cannot be an aggressive air Power. In fighters, of course, as the Prime Minister has said, we have been surprised by the Russian M.I.G.15. I should not like to pass any further comment about that. Undoubtedly in time we shall regain our position, as we did in the last two wars, but it is a very painful process.

Mr. John Profumo: Having made that profound remark about the Russian fighter, I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that the serious situation has been much aggravated by the fact that the previous Government of the party to which he belongs sold Rolls Royce aeroplane engines and jet engines to the Soviet Union, with the aid of which they have managed to develop this aircraft?

Mr. Frederick Lee: Does my hon. and gallant Friend also remember that earlier today the Prime Minister mentioned the enormous dollar value of the export of certain of the arms that we are making now?

Mr. Profumo: Not to Russia.

Group Captain Wilcock: If I may thank my hon. Friend for his assistance and answer the hon. Gentleman opposite, I would say that we were wrong to sell these engines. I would point out, however, that, as a result of the hostilities which have been going on for two and a half years, that type of aircraft would certainly have been in the hands of the Russians by now. It is not a fact that we sold them something which they could never obtain.
It is argued in some quarters that the United States can provide the necessary numbers of bombers. That might be so provided that they themselves were not engaged in a very great effort in the Far East. If they were, we should feel the shortage of bombers most acutely. Although we need fighters—and I think that there has been rather too much emphasis on fighters recently—and all the complicated and expensive ground defence organisation, they have no deterrent value to war. The only value of a fighter in a modern war appears to be to break up and destroy bomber formations. Of course, I am speaking in a broad sense.
What we require is a mass-produced bomber. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air to discuss this suggestion with his colleagues. We require a cheap mass-produced bomber without all the frills. We want one which is only pressurised in the crew's cockpit and not right throughout the aircraft. That would save weight. There are over 100 instruments in a modern bomber, and half of them could be cut out. The bomber, I suggest, should have a small crew and not very


much in the way of arms. This bomber is needed to drop a bomb and not to fight a battle in the air. We should try to find and develop quickly a type of aircraft which is light and which can operate at very high altitudes, and we should produce it in large numbers. Its job should be to drop a bomb. That is its deterrent value. If that suggestion received immediate consideration, we might get somewhere in air defence—and quickly.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking from the Socialist benches. Is he suggesting that the proper policy for the country is to get a large mass of bombers, equipped not even to come back, with the sole purpose of engaging upon mass obliteration of the population of another country? Is that his contribution to the problem of world peace and world security?

Group Captain Wilcock: I am not taking part in this debate to make any contribution other than one for the defence of this country.

Mr. Silverman: Is that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls defence?

Group Captain Wilcock: I made no suggestion that we should have aircraft which would not return. I do not know where my hon. Friend got that idea from. My object in talking about this bomber is to suggest that it would be a deterrent to war. My hon. Friend should get that into his mind. It is from strength and not from weakness that we shall succeed in achieving peace.
My hon. Friend will remember that at the Lisbon conference there was talk about 4,000 aircraft being in Europe this year. If there are to be 4,000 aircraft, I want 3,000 bombers to prevent a war and not 4,000 defensive aircraft to fight a war over this country. I put that to my hon. Friend to show that my aim is to prevent war.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really think, as a member of the Socialist movement and speaking in the interests of those who elected him to come here, that peace and security in the world, the defence of this country and the deterrence of other people from making attacks, is really assisted by telling them that we intend

to devote the greater part of our armament resources to weapons of pure aggression designed to obliterate masses of their population? Does he really think that that is how one deters people from protecting themselves?

Group Captain Wilcock: My hon. Friend's last remark answers his question. That is exactly the way to convince people that war is not worth while. I claim to have done as much as my hon. Friend for peace as well as for the safety of this country.

Mr. Silverman: And if the Russians take that view, the hon. and gallant Gentleman supports them?

Group Captain Wilcock: There appears to be great confusion in the hon. Member's mind. He is confusing two different subjects. I am dealing with a deterrent to war.
Recently there was comment in the Press that £200 million is to be spent on the construction of airfields in Europe, and £30 million is to be subscribed by this country. That is a fundamental error. The policy is entirely wrong. The strategically sound place in which to base aircraft which have to operate against any aircraft attacking from the east is in this country and not in Europe. It is a sine qua non that the bases of an air squadron should be in a relatively safe area. Aircraft performance in the air relies upon maintenance on the ground and upon the supply of fuel, oil and spare parts. The place for them to be based is here and not in Euorpe.
It can only be a diplomatic gesture to suggest that that amount of money should be spent on air strips in Europe. If the position is as serious as we are led to believe, and as we feel it is, then military considerations should be the deciding factor and not diplomatic gestures. The military consideration is that the aircraft should be based in Britain. Incidentally, there should be many air strips in France and Germany. Both we and the Germans and the Russians built many there. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that just over 10 years ago we lost all our equipment and, but for a miracle, we should have lost all our men in France. I say, without wishing to labour this point, that the place to build the aerodromes is in this country and not in


France. By building airfields on the Continent the range of aircraft is increased by only a very small amount—100 miles, or 10 minutes in a modern aircraft.
Another factor in defence is the possibility of war outside Europe. There we face an entirely different problem. We cannot have strength everywhere, but if we could reinforce quickly and if we had the carrier aircraft to do that, then we might quite possibly prevent aggression. To be able to get troops quickly to a threatened spot is to prevent that threat from being carried out, and that, of course, is the object, or should be the object, of an air force, and, indeed, of all armed forces. The possession of an adequate number of transport aircraft might well prevent any adventures commencing in the Near East, or extending in the Far East.
We know the difficult position over the matter of transport aircraft today. I speak quite feelingly on this subject, because I was in Transport Command at the end of the war, when it was the largest command in the Royal Air Force. It is very sad indeed to see the way in which that command has strunk, and I am sure that it has done so purely on account of two considerations. One is that there has only been a certain amount of money to spend, and much of it has been required for types of aircraft other than transport aircraft, but I believe that it is also because the Army have won their point that trooping shall be carried out by the more orthodox methods of sea, and not by air. The generals appear to have won their battle against the air marshals.
We saw in the war, during the invasion of Normandy, that the Germans were unable to reinforce their troops in Normandy because they had not got sufficient transport aircraft in which to bring in reinforcements, and they could not use the roads, which were denied to them. I think this matter should be given very high priority amongst the many problems with which the Ministers concerned have to deal.
Finally, on my last point—and I apologise for speaking so long, but I have been interrupted—[Interruption.] I would ask the hon. Gentleman to keep quiet for a moment. I want to come back to economics. Defence must take its stand for examination. The aid of

the United States is, of course, invaluable to us, but we must put our own house in order. I consider that we have more brains in this country than there are in any other country in the world, not excluding the United States, and we must use our brains and try to approach these problems in an unorthodox way. My criticism of my own Government was that it was too orthodox on these matters, and I am hoping that we shall now see an unorthodox approach.
The first question is whether our Army and Air Force should be two separate Services. It was absolutely essential 25 years ago, when our Air Force was an infant and could not reach maturity, or have any individuality without independence. That is no longer true. The Air Force today is recognised as our first line of defence. It is in equal partnership with the Army, and it is therefore worth while, from the point of view of economy, considering whether we cannot now merge both these forces. I am not suggesting that it would bring greater efficiency; but it could bring greater economy.
If that is too much for the Minister of Defence, and he thinks I am going too far, why does he not examine the amalgamation of the supply services, the depots, mechanical transport organisations and all the non-combatant ancillary services, such as the chaplains, doctors, dentists, equipment, stores and secretariat branches? Why not standardise the pay codes, and all these stupid ranks and terms of service, and why not bring some of the Royal Navy into this, too? This would create very great economy, as hon. Members on both sides of the House who have experience of the Services will know.
There is fantastic waste in the Services now. There is no other word for it, and great economies could be made, without any deterrent to the efficiency of the Services. They could start right away at the top in the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty. In every one of these organisations there are intelligence branches finding out exactly the same things, and, for all I know, the same thing is probably done already by the Foreign Office. Should it go on? Why not have an unorthodox approach to economy in defence?
In conclusion, I submit that the defence of this country and of the Commonwealth


is not solely a matter for soldiers, sailors and airmen. The Defence Ministry, I suggest, should be much more realistic, and it should include a Minister of Migration. We have too many mouths in this country, while we are too weak in the Dominions and Colonies. That is a military problem today.
The Minister of Civil Aviation should sit alongside the Air Minister, because civil aviation is the first reserve of the Royal Air Force, and economies can be made in the Air Force in ratio to the strength and efficiency of civil aviation. Development in the air concerns both the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Next, there should be a Minister of Propaganda to get behind the Iron Curtain and tell those countries what even my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) cannot seem to understand—that we are re-arming to prevent war, and that we have no territorial ambitions at all in the world. If we can get it across to them, as I hope I am now getting it across to my hon. Friend, we shall win the cold war now being waged by the Soviet Union on this side of the Iron Curtain.

5.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I ask the indulgence of the House on this the first occasion on which I rise to speak, and I would also acknowledge in advance the wit that will no doubt ensue from the connection with my name, although I would remind hon. Members that the two words are spelled differently.
In preface to my speech, I should like to say how very glad I am to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), who spoke from the benches opposite, and with whose remarks almost wholly in principle and very largely in detail I agree.
The feature of defence on which I wish to speak is one which has not always received the attention that it should have. Much money has to be spent and has been spent on arms, and there is a divergence of opinion on how much should be so spent, although I think we all agree that the necessity for spending is there. The feature which worries me is whether,

in this vast re-armament programme, we have, in fact, sufficient shipping capacity, by which I mean merchant shipping capacity, to carry those arms and those men to the sphere of operations where they may be required.
We are becoming increasingly short of dry cargo tonnage with a high carrying capacity for specialised modern military equipment of large bulk and of heavy weight. Such ships are required to have a greater height between decks than has been the normal practice in the past, and they also require large capacity holds. In this connection, we should not be confused with the specialised types of vessels which have become almost naval vessels, as opposed to merchant vessels, by which I mean the tank landing craft and tank landing ships. Such vessels are designed for short lifts, and cannot reasonably be used for long ocean voyages.
In times of crisis, particularly during the time of the crisis in Abadan and again more recently during the Egyptian crisis, one was confronted on numerous occasions in the newspapers with photographs of aircraft carriers cluttered up with all sorts of vehicles and gear upon their flight decks. That is a gross misappropriation of a most specialised and expensive vessel to a use for which it was not designed.
When we look at the figures for British tonnage in the shipping registers, there is, at first sight, quite a satisfactory vista to be seen. We have steadily increased the total British Empire tonnage since 1947. We have got rather more than 22 million tons of shipping, counting all types, and that is the highest total tonnage since 1932. But one has to look rather more closely into these figures in order to understand them properly.
If we make a breakdown of the figures to get what can be considered useful tonnage of modern building suitable for military purposes, the picture is very different. We have rather more than 1,200 merchant ships of a total tonnage of 7½ million tons. Those ships would be of between 2,000 and 10,000 tons, less than 10 years old, and excluding oil tankers. Naturally, oil tankers and such ships of specialised design must be excluded for such purposes.
If we look at the ships under construction in the United Kingdom at the present


time, the picture is not quite so satisfactory as it might be. In 1950, we built 1,300,000 tons of shipping, of which approximately one-third was for export. Last year the figure was very nearly the same, but about half of it was for export, and during the current year we have two and a quarter million tons under construction, which represents 40 per cent. of the whole world figure. But of this tonnage, one-third is for foreign flag. Again, 60 per cent. of our construction in 1951 was tanker construction, and more than 60 per cent. of that was for foreign flag. Therefore, we are getting to the stage when the British dry cargo fleet of reasonable ocean-going size is diminishing both in numbers of ships and in tonnage. That is a far from satisfactory state of affairs.
In the past there has been a considerable difference of opinion whether it is possible to build a medium speed cargo carrier suitable for military purposes in war-time, and, at the same time, an economical freight carrier in time of peace. I think that the divergence of opinion on that point today is getting closer and closer. In fact, the large majority of those concerned in shipping circles agree that a medium speed ship of reasonable tonnage can not only be a useful war-time cargo carrier, but also a most economical peace-time cargo carrier.
I feel that we want to consider this whole problem from a completely new angle. We have got into rather conventional ruts. But for oil tankers and other specialised vessels, the very large majority of sea-going ships still have their engines amidships. If we can design ships with their propelling machinery right aft, as is done in oil tanker tonnage, we shall then afford the maximum beam of the ship to cargo carrying, and, at the same time, reduce the vulnerability of ships. It is that long shaft tunnel which runs up from the propeller to the engines, sometimes one-third or one-half the length of the ship, which is always the vulnerable spot, and which caused so many losses in both world wars.
This particular feature of defence is the concern of no particular Ministry more than any other. I feel that all Ministries should bend their attention to this point so that in the future we can feel some degree of certainty that our men, our arms, our tanks, or whatever it might be,

may be carried to that corner of the world where we and the United Nations are being threatened.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: May I, on my own behalf and on behalf of the House, offer sincere congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for Wells. (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), upon the excellence of the speech he has just delivered? He obviously speaks with a very wide knowledge on what is an important subject, and one to which, perhaps, the attention of the House may well be drawn on future occasions. I am sure we shall all enjoy listening to him in the future now that he is no longer a "maiden."
I wish to touch on one point previously mentioned which arose from an interjection by an hon. Member opposite in regard to the Rolls Royce Nene engines. I think it is important to realise—a fact which frequently goes un-noticed—that these engines were on the free list. They were available for sale to any country that had the means to buy them. We can be quite certain that if Russia wanted those engines, even if we denied them to her directly, she would have got them anyway through their being available to the rest of the world, in precisely the same way as other things are finding their way to China and Russia through other countries.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Surely, when the hon. Gentleman says that these engines were free for Russia to buy, I am right in saying that Sir Stafford Cripps, when he held office, was the responsible Minister. At any rate, that is what we were told or heard, and Sir Frank Whittle is on record as having said—at least I heard him say it—that the Russians would save 12 years of research as a result of receiving these engines.

Mr. Pargiter: I am afraid that has nothing to do with the matter. These engines were on the free list and were available to anybody wishing to buy them. They could have been bought by any country, and Russia could have got them.
I come back to the general problems of defence. In relation to the position that has been becoming more and more obvious in the last year, not only in this


country but also in America, with all the political manoeuvring and so on which is going on there, one wonders when one looks round the world whether we are debating British defence or whether it is American defence with which we are dealing.
I say that because it is becoming obvious from the nature of the speeches one hears from across the Atlantic that there are two schools of thought, much different from the original school of thought, with regard to defence. One is that the American defence perimeter should be set as far away as possible from America, and the other, the isolationist view, that all military commitments abroad should be withdrawn and that the defence of America should rest within America. What happens in the American Presidential election or even what happens before it may cause concern because the whole question of European defence may very well become involved in the result of that political upheaval.
If one looks at defence policy as a whole, one can see why there is considerable misgiving in this and other countries about it. After all, defence policy is not only a matter for this country and for Europe, but a matter for the whole world. When we find that a good part of defence policy is apparently concerned with the re-armament of Japan and the re-emergence of Chiang Kaishek carefully polished up ready for use in the event of an invasion of China's mainland, and when we see that the Americans are courting Franco Spain to provide bases, one is entitled to consider carefully what our problems are, what our defence policy is at the present time, and the types of people on whom that policy is in part based.
The greatest contribution America ever made to the defence of Europe was in the Marshall Aid Plan which, with no strings at all, sought to rebuild the economic life of the free nations of Europe so that they could resist political aggression, either from within or from without. It was a great contribution which built up Europe and afforded the greatest possible advantages to all of us.
Today it is obvious that not only in this country but in Europe generally there is growing alarm at the burden

which is being cast upon all of us as a result of the defence programme. It is obvious that in France it is almost impossible to proceed with a defence programme at the present time, in spite of what takes place behind the scenes—because obviously the French have been told that unless they provide a certain number of divisions they cannot look for American economic or military aid. The position in Germany is much the same. I have always been opposed to German re-armament and nothing that has happened recently has caused me to change my mind.
It is no good suggesting that in the case of Germany it is a commitment freely entered into. It is nothing of the kind. The answer is that they have to agree to the financial contribution they have been told they must make to defence or else it will be taken up in occupation costs. The one is a concomitant of the other. In Belgium also considerable fears have been expressed about the effect of the re-armament programme upon that country's economy. All this is no sort of basis for defence against possible aggression.
If we proceed with a large defence programme and if, when we secure it, we are going to negotiate from strength and not from weakness, on what are we going to negotiate? That is a question people ask today and they want an answer before readily acquiescing in a further burden of defence.
Russia is fighting, and will continue to fight, a very bitter aggressive political war; but that does not necessarily mean that she will seek to fight an aggressive military war. The evidence is against it. The evidence is that Russia's main air force is a defensive air force and certainly not one likely to be used aggressively, except possibly in connection with ground troops. The possibility of aggression is always there as long as armed forces exist, but from the evidence the possibility is not as great as we might fear.
Equally, if our economic position is going to deteriorate at the rate it is now deteriorating, not only here but in Europe generally, as a result of the burden of re-armament, then I am afraid our ability to resist political aggression will become less and not greater. In


other words, we may be in possession of vast defensive forces and at the same time we may see very rapid progress towards Communism in those parts of Europe which it has not yet reached.
It is because of those considerations that I am concerned about American policy. The policy of aid not allied to commitments was of great assistance in resisting that type of aggression. But military aid alone does not help that resistance; and when it is tied up with the American election it can be a very great danger to the future of Europe and to the economic future of the Western Powers.
There is an even more important factor in these considerations. There is no doubt that America will not be satisfied until she has the German heavy arms industry in full production again. In our opinion, that industry should never have been handed back to the people who were responsible for building two great war machines. But it is now very much back in their hands. It is well-known that America would rather rely for defence purposes upon the German arms industry, with all that that involves, than upon a French contribution to Western defence.
Above all, if a free vote were taken of the people of Germany and of France on the question of German re-armament and the re-equipment of the German arms industry, one would find the overwhelming majority of both countries against it. In a free society that is a very grave danger. If one is to proceed with a policy in a free country, that policy must ultimately receive the sanction of the people. Nothing convinces me that present arrangements on German re-armament will commend themselves to the German or French people. Therefore, those arrangements must remain a danger.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Is the hon. Member referring to a free vote of Western Germany or of all Germany?

Mr. Pargiter: I am referring to the people who will be capable of exercising a free vote—the people of Western Germany alone. It is obvious—and it has been said from the Government Front Bench—that the re-armament programme is slowing down; and it has also been admitted that it is quite certain it will slow down further. The increased cost, the economic

difficulties, and the anxiety to maintain our standard of life are bound to have that effect. I think it is time we said that, whether it is based upon the original figure or upon the present estimate of £4,700 million, it will be much more than three, four, or even five or six years before the defence programme is completed, unless there is a rapid change in the economic circumstances of this country.
It is desirable that the Government should recognise that, and they should re-plan the re-armament programme in accordance with that fact, while at the same time seeing to it that the people's standard of living is not depressed as a result of action designed to resist possible military aggression from Russia without regard to the assistance she may give to political aggression to which we shall continue to be subject, arms or no arms, for a long time to come.

6.10 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne: After listening to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) who has just sat down, I must say I was a little uncertain whether he approved of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or whether he was not really advocating some mutual defence pact with Soviet Russia. He certainly stressed the point that there were no offensive intentions on the part of soviet Russia.

Mr. Pargiter: I should be quite happy to enter into a defence pact with any country that would preserve world peace.

Viscount Cranborne: That has made that point clear. I think it would he very difficult for the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) to maintain his point that Russia has never had any intention and has no intention now, of waging a future offensive war, because I think that is precisely what she is doing in such countries as Korea, Malaya and Indo-China. Consequently, we are already seeing the fruits of her war production in operation.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Southall, because I want to refer to some of the points which he raised. It seems to me that the present situation has arisen largely because many Governments—not only the Government of this country, but the Governments of the United States and other Powers—did


not appreciate the situation that developed as a result of Russian plans immediately after the last war. Consequently, we allowed our defences to run down to such a point that we were not in a position to have an immediate reply in the event of aggression.
We all hope that there will be no aggression, but if there is we must be prepared to deal with it. That is why we have this defence programme, initiated by the past Government and supported by the present one; but it is quite clear that other countries in the defence organisation that has been built up are not playing their part. I think that is particularly so in the case of France. That country still considers herself to be a great Power, but she has really done nothing over the last 12 years to show that she still is. If that is the case, it is evident that the pillar, as far as the Atlantic defence organisation is concerned, has a completely weak base, and we surely have to face that position and see that our activities are not completely wasted.
If we are to be asked to send six or seven divisions to line a defensive perimeter across Germany, we must be sure that other people on both flanks will fight as we are going to do if we are attacked. We also want to be certain that the position behind the line will be satisfactory; that is, we do not want a Fifth Column constantly sabotaging our lines of communication. We must remember that in France more than one in five men and women voted Communist at the last election. Consequently, there is a potential of one in five who may be prepared to operate behind the lines with a potential enemy.
I think we must ask for further guarantees from France. We should ask her what she is intending to do to implement or guarantee the peace. We must see whether it is a genuine guarantee. We must have something definite. I suggest that before we enter into any further commitments we, together with the Americans, should ask the French if they are prepared to do anything of this sort and, if not, we should scrap the whole Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We must tell them that they have to have bigger forces; they have to have an arms drive.
It must be remembered that it was the Socialist Party's refusal to co-operate with the French Government that caused the present deadlock in Paris, and it is evident that the Socialist Party here take a similar line. I think we have to insist on certain things. I should like to propose that we, in conjunction with the Americans, urge the French to adopt a two-year period of national training. It would enable their less trained troops to be sent to Indo-China, so that some of their regular troops could be brought back to serve in the European Army.
Secondly, we must have some supervision to ensure that they are setting about their re-armament programme. I suggest that, in turn for the contributions that the Americans are making towards this re-armament programme, they should ask for a reasonable degree of supervision to see that it is carried out. For those reasons, therefore, I hope that the Government will not enter into any more commitments in Europe until we have a reasonably satisfactory review of the French situation.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: What I have to say is in rather a different tone from most of the speeches which have been made this evening, with the exception perhaps of that of the horn Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) who, I think, made a very interesting and helpful speech. All the other speakers have based their remarks on the assumption that the defence plan contained in the White Paper is not only a sound plan but a plan which this country can physically and economically undertake. I wish to argue the case which, I think, represents the views of some other hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House, that this is a tragic mistake and that within six months we shall discover by hard facts that the paper plans we are passing today will be impossible to carry out.
I should like to say one word to my right hon. Friends on my own Front Bench. From the Order Paper I gather that they are moving an Amendment to the Government White Paper—an Amendment in which the Tory policy is accepted but the Tory administration of the Tory policy is condemned. I should be the last to disagree with them about the inadequacy of the present Govern


ment, but I must say that of all the things on which I would hesitate to challenge the Prime Minister the last would be his competence to carry out a defence programme. I should challenge him on a rather different point: his competence to decide the priority which should be given to the military weapon as against the economic and social defence of democracy.
There are two functions we have to fulfil in regard to defence. The first, which has hardly been mentioned in this debate, is to work out a defence plan within a general framework of economic policy and to determine what priority to accord to defence expenditure as opposed to other forms of expenditure. That has been completely neglected in this debate.
Only then do we come to the second point, which is the administration of that plan. It was one of our main themes in the Election that a Tory Government would concentrate on the military containment of Communism and would concentrate on piling up military strength. Yet when we come to this debate, the official Amendment moved from my own Front Bench accepts the Tory policy and then says that the Tories cannot carry it out.
Frankly, I cannot support such an argument with any conscience at all. I wish to oppose the White Paper and, very briefly, to say why. First, however, I want to make one thing clear. I am not one of those people who does not believe in re-armament. I was one of those who voted and spoke in favour of conscription, and I was given a great deal of trouble by many of my colleagues in the last Parliament because of that. I have always been in favour of recognising the necessity for military strength.
I go further; I admit that there are times in the life of each nation when military defence must he given an overriding priority. Such a time was 1940. We had to scrape all our foreign investments from the bottom of the barrel and sell them at rock bottom prices to the Americans. We had to forfeit years of work building up our export markets. In 1940 we had to give defence an overriding priority. I can imagine a time, not in war, but when war is so imminent that one must once again give defence an overriding economic priority. Such a time, I could conceive, was from 1938 until 1939, when the war broke out. We are discus-

sing, therefore, first of all, whether defence should be given an over-riding priority in allocating our resources.
I think it is worth remembering when the defence programme was launched. It was launched when Washington was in a panic about MacArthur's retreat in Korea. I use the word "panic" because it was used to me not long ago in Washington by officials in the Pentagon who said, "Thank heavens the 'panic' mood in which we were planning last year has now subsided, and we can look at this thing objectively." Why should we imagine that the plans which we hurriedly botched together in December and January last year should be sacred? Why we should not realise that they were made at a time when, almost unanimously but half-heartedly, the House felt that we might have to make defence an overriding priority, I do not know.
Times have completely changed; that, I should have thought, was something we all had to recognise. None of us, or very few of us on this side of the House, can deny responsibility for acquiescing in last year's big defence programme. We cannot criticise each other for not discovering, until too late, its disastrous effects. But what I urge upon the House is that we should learn the lessons of the last 12 months, and what it does to a relatively free economy to inject too much defence into it.
What is the first lesson of 1951? The first lesson is that by trying to do too much we did less than if we had not attempted the programme.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Nonsense.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend says "Nonsense." He often says that, but usually, six months later, he comes to the truth.
The lesson, I repeat, is that by trying to do too much we disrupted our economy and we also dislocated our own defence programme. It is not only a problem for this nation; it is a problem for the whole free world. Today we have an intensification of the unbalance between the United States and Europe. An underlying chronic crisis was made a desperate crisis as a result of Atlantic rearmament. What is the good of the Foreign Secretary going to Lisbon and making his glorious, optimistic speeches about everything being fine when, a week


later, France is without a Government, and the talk of the French Government having £1,400 million to spend on defence is just "my eye"?
We have to face the facts. Without international control of raw materials, the biggest and the wealthiest Power will draw the raw materials to it and will pay the prices which no one else can afford. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, internationally and inside each community. So we are faced internationally with a world inflation which forces up our import prices and still further unbalances our own economy.
Let us turn to the internal effect of this 12 months of re-armament. I think none of us appreciated, when we did not oppose the £4,700 million defence programme, or when we acquiesced in it, what the effect of injecting so much defence expenditure into a fully employed economy was going to be. I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he had injected a similar programme into the 1938 economy it could have been absorbed very easily indeed, for in 1938 there were two million unemployed and there were raw materials piled up waiting to be used. There was, then, almost no limit to the recuperative effect of re-armament upon our economy.
Unfortunately—if I may say so—we have had six years of a successful Labour Government maintaining full employment. [Laughter.] I repeat that: unfortunately, we have had six years of full employment; so that when we inject defence into the economy it produces maximum dislocation. My own view is that we could have undertaken the programme we set ourselves only if we had been prepared to transform our economy into a full wartime economy, if we had been prepared to accept direction of labour, if we had been prepared to accept direction of capital, if we had been prepared to accept physical control of every raw material, if we had been prepared to re-introduce rationing to ensure fair shares of short consumer goods, and to re-introduce utility; in other words, if we had re-created a complete war economy, then I have no doubt we could have made a good effort internally to absorb the defence programme, even though the raw material crisis might have proved fatal to the effort.
From the internal point of view, we have either to accept a complete war

economy or to accept that as long as we do not have a war economy, then the amount of re-armament we shall be able to complete without wrecking ourselves will be far below the minimum demanded by the Chiefs of Staff and by the Americans, who, of course, do not understand the working of a fully-employed economy such as ours, for they have never had one. That is the first lesson—that we must calculate our defence in terms of full employment; and that means much less armaments than most people imagined a year ago.
The second lesson is the only lesson which the Prime Minister bothered to give us this evening. He made it quite clear in his speech that the imminence of war, which was the major premise of our re-armament programme in January, 1951, has receded today, and, therefore, that the whole basis upon which we gave armaments an over-riding priority has been knocked out. We must now re-think our armaments programme, not in terms of an imminent war as the main danger, but in terms of the imminent bankruptcy of the free world, outside the U.S.A., as the immediate danger which we have to face.
The issue today is not whether we should be for or against cuts in the re-armament programme. Everybody has agreed to cuts. They have done so because it was physically impossible to carry out the programme. Six months from now they will be agreeing to cuts all over again, when we have failed to carry out this programme—with disastrous consequences. The issue today is: How much should we cut? The Prime Minister was not very candid about the proposed cuts. The "Economist" was a great deal more candid this week: it pointed out that 35 per cent. of the increased re-armament planned by the Labour Government has been cut back this year and that the re-armament train is now proceeding at 20 miles-an-hour instead of 30 miles-an-hour.
That is an immense cut which proves that the Prime Minister does not regard war as imminent at all. It confirms the fact which has already been shown by the decision to run down stockpiles. We have a Tory Government who reduce the stockpile of timber and reduce the stockpile of food, who run down the re-armament programme by 35 per cent. of the planned increase. That has disproved the


major premise on which the whole programme of the Labour Government was based.
We must, therefore, say to ourselves that the issue is not whether we continue the programme of 1951 into 1952. The question is: What re-armament can we afford in 1952 in an entirely new situation created by an economic crisis so severe that the French economy and the French political system of democracy are on the point of collapse, and when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are spending their time lecturing the country that there will be nothing left in the gold reserve by September and that there will be mass unemployment? Those are not my words; they come from official Government spokesmen.
It was an official Government spokesman who warned us that the flight from the £ has not been halted by the Tories, and that there was still no confidence in the £ and that there are only five months' gold reserve if all this goes on as it is at present. In that situation, in a situation in which an economic crisis hits this country, the House has to decide whether to have over £1,400 million spent on the most inflationary thing we can spend it on—armaments.
I am not saying that we should have no arms. I am asking the House to consider, perfectly objectively, what is the very maximum we can afford without utterly destroying our economy. Again, I should like to quote the "Economist." Goodness knows, it is not what is called a "Bevanite" paper. It had an article this week with a headline with which I say I do not quite agree; it goes too far for me. It runs, "Security Second." Then the "Economist" says:
re-armament must be cut for the sake of exports. There is no choice. A bankrupt Britain cannot be safe or contribute to the safety of others when the need is so pressing. National solvency must rank before military security.
This is a nine months' too late convert—the "Economist"—but the Bevanites will accept him all the same.
I know that we shall have the objection from the other side, "We have made all the cuts. What are you complaining about? We have made a 35 per cent. cut." What I am complaining about is that the cuts are cuts of targets; the cuts are cuts of paper blueprints. But the

proposal before us is actually an increase of expenditure over last year—and that after 12 months during which we are on the way to destroying the whole economy through re-armament. In the second year of the defence plan we increase the armaments burden on this country despite the lessons of the first year.
What I want to discuss is whether that is the right thing to do. It is agreed by the Prime Minister that we are in "dire economic peril." We must, therefore, now consider armaments as only one of the priorities. Yes, we must try to get what defence we can, but we must consider defence measured against three other priorities: national solvency, national independence, and the fabric of the Welfare State. I say that all four must be considered together in this debate, and we must ask ourselves how we can balance these four so as to get through this critical year. Therefore, I suggest that the House must address itself, in this debate, to this balance of priorities instead of listening to an exchange of bouquets between those who are responsible for getting us into this position.
We must apply to the re-armament programme the three tests I have mentioned: (1) Is it compatible with national solvency this year? (2) Does it mean undermining the rebuilding of the last six years? (3) Will it threaten our national independence? I want to say a word briefly about each. First, as to solvency. The Prime Minister admitted, in his vague way, "Oh, yes, we have made a bit of a change. We have shifted the balance of raw material supply from armaments to exports." I am glad he agrees with the maxim that it is practically impossible for us to increase arms production this year and to increase exports. Why is it impossible? Because textiles, which it was expected last year would fill the trade gap, have not had much of a market abroad. The engineering industry must be our main exporting industry while, at the same time, it is our main armaments industry.
Hon. Members on the other side challenge this. Let them look at the appalling confusion created in the motor industry by the results of the attempt to inject too much arms into it too quickly. The results are that we are getting fewer arms and no motorcars—or I should say


fewer motorcars and no armaments. If he admits that it is not possible to increase both arms and exports, I ask the Prime Minister: "Which does he choose—motorcars or exports?" That is the question. Because if he chooses arms we shall be insolvent. How are we to earn our way in the engineering industry?
"Oh," somebody will say, "I will tell you what. Let us double the size of the industry. Let us double it so that we have enough engineering plant for arms and for exports." That is what the Americans do. They have the two-track way: one armaments track and the other the civil consumption track. But this defence plan does not enable us to have that. It cuts down capital investment and prevents us from increasing the plant.
Let me give the House some figures. In 1951 the United States of America had a capital investment, in machinery and plant alone, of £3,800 million, and we had £300 million. I want to know, if this goes on—as we are now told it is going on for four years—where will our industry be after four years? Capital investment cut to the bone; our actual exports cut down at the precise time when German and Japanese competition is coming.
I am willing to be generous, but we destroyed our economy entirely in the last war, and had to rebuild it from scratch. Are we to rebuild it in the cold war, and, if so, how are we to do it? What will happen when the re-armament programme is over? The factories will be outdated; our markets lost. Shall we take American charity? Is that what the answer is? Is that solvency? If it is not, what is the answer? We are heading straight for national insolvency. Every economist knows it, and part of the reason is the attempt to pile this year an increased burden of arms production on the engineering industry, a burden which it cannot conceivably take without wrecking its export earning capacity.

Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend took his stand on the £3,600 million defence programme. If we do not spend more this year than we did last year on arms, we shall not even be able to fulfil the £3,600 million defence programme. Last April my hon. Friend wrote part of the pamphlet called "Socialist Foreign Policy" after the announcement of the

£4,700 million defence programme, and he said:
We have to get used to the idea that, in this cold war, armed strength is essential, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in building this armed strength.…
Not a word of criticism of the £4.700 million defence programme.

Mr. Crossman: I wish my hon. Friend would not interrupt. It merely makes the speech longer because anyway I was going to deal with his points. The answer to his first point is this. I am not saying that we should scrap our armaments, but that we must learn the lessons of the past 12 months. The politician who cannot learn from the facts is no good at politics.
I come to my hon. Friend's second question. Does this defence programme of 1952 undermine the fabric of the Welfare State? I will leave it to my hon. Friends who know more than I about the social services to answer that in more detail, but I say that we have already had cuts in the school building programme and cuts in the National Health Service. What about the old age pensioners? What worries me is that unless we are prepared to increase the scale of old age pensions, unless we are prepared to increase the scale of sickness benefit and of unemployment benefit, we are going to destroy the fabric of the Welfare State.
It is impossible to convince me that we shall secure an increase in old age pensions and in the basic rate of sickness benefit above its present level, which is less than they were getting when they first got it in 1910; that we can do all that and have a £1,400 million armaments programme this year. No one believes that it is possible. No one! We have got to take our choice. That choice is between national solvency and bankruptcy in terms of exports, and arms. In terms of the Welfare State, it is between an increase in arms this year and a cut in the real value of social services.
I now come to my third point, and here I am also dealing with the second question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). Can we maintain national independence with this arms programme? It is not denied that we must carry out this programme with American assistance. We are already taking 300 million dollars this year, and I can assure


my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the Battle Act applies to us automatically when we take a single dollar, so there is already a mass of political conditions imposed on us automatically by taking it. This year, I gather from my reading of the Press, the Government are angling for 600 million more dollars of military aid.
I should like to make it quite clear that I am not for a moment against military aid. Indeed, I have often believed that America should be doing far more than she is doing. People are sometimes so stupid and illiterate that they give percentages of the national incomes devoted to defence—15 per cent. in the case of America and 11 per cent. in our case—and say that America is doing more than her share.
But look at the Income Tax, which is graded. America, with a gigantic national income, is making no sacrifice on armaments whatsoever. How do we know? Because the real wage in America rose 2 per cent. last year, whereas the real wage in Britain fell 2 per cent. last year, so that the one is sacrificing while the other is getting an addition of wealth.
I do not want to gird against America, but I say that it is no good American assistance being given in a form which strangles the economies of her allies. If it is demanded of us that we should first ruin our export industry and cut back our capital investment so that our whole economy is ruined, and that then when we have ruined ourselves we should receive a few dollars—that is not assistance. It is a way of killing us. What is the sort of aid which is wanted? There is only one: it is lease-lend of finished equipment. If only America would relieve the export industry of this country so that it could earn us a living, and then say to us, "Do all you can on your own resources. Do everything the British national economy can afford, and any extra divisions we want will have to be equipped with American equipment out of the American defence bill"—that would be a genuine form of aid. But the form of military assistance we can get this year, the American election year, is not that. I propose the lease-lend of finished equipment. If they propose dollars on condition that we switch our industry from exports, on condition that we cut our

capital investment, on condition that we ruin ourselves—if, then, they permit us to eke out a satellite living on American dollars, then I say frankly that that sort of assistance destroys our national independence.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said that we should get finished equipment. Does he not recognise that an agreement was recently brought about that the F.86 fighter should be made in Canada, using engines made in the United States, which will be finished equipment?

Mr. Crossman: Of course I do; and I am delighted. I was delighted to find this January that in America there was a great deal of response to this idea. But I do not find enough preparation for that over here. There is too much national pride about this; too much pride in saying, "We must build our own Army and we will get the dollars to do it." My view is that we must decide to build nothing in Britain that we cannot ourselves afford out of our own resources. Then, if there is a gap, we could say to America, "For anything beyond what we can afford ourselves, we will provide the men, but the equipment must come entirely from the other side."
Now I want to try to sum up what I have attempted to say. I put it to the Prime Minister that his arms programme is far too small if there is a genuine danger of imminent war. As he himself admitted, it is fantastically small if there is a genuine danger of imminent war. But the arms programme is fantastically too large to sustain in face of a yawning trade gap. It fails on the military side; it fails on the economic side; it ruins us economically, and it does not give us protection. If war were inevitable the programme would be miserably and totally inadequate. We all know it. We are playing at arming ourselves—I suppose to deceive ourselves.
There is the Prime Minister, with his courageous Home Guard ready for the dropping of Russian paratroopers; and we are to have lovely air-raid sirens, but no air-raid shelters; we are running down the stockpiles. We are making idiots of ourselves militarily, but we are still spending so much on the idiocy as to ruin ourselves economically.


If it is a long-term job—and I believe it is—if the situation is to last 30 or 40 years, then I say, "Undertake an arms plan, after the bitter experience we have all had, which this country can afford out of its own resources."

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to elucidate a point which is of very great importance. My hon. Friend claims that it is impossible, and indeed unwise, for economic reasons—exports and the like—to spend £1,400 million this year. Would he be good enough to tell us the extent of the reduction he would propose? That is vital. We ought to see exactly what amount he thinks we ought to expend on defence.

Mr. Crossman: I am gratified to find that the former Minister of Defence takes my views a great deal more seriously now than he did when he was Minister of Defence.

Mr. Shinwell: I have always taken my hon. Friend seriously.

Mr. Crossman: Good. Then I dare say there was a misunderstanding.
I do not like to go on too long, but at the cost of delaying the House, I will answer the question. I will make a tentative suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I have been trying, with some statistical friends, to make a little calculation. We may be wrong, but we calculate that if we could increase our exports by some £300 million this year, it might see us through the worst. In my view, in order to increase exports we must switch a certain amount of engineering plant from armaments to exports and capital investment in machinery.
However, since productivity is much higher in consumer goods than it is in armaments, we reckon that if £250 million is switched from armaments to exports and capital investment we might get through the crisis by a very narrow margin. I would point out that if we did that and said to America "Would you please make £250 million worth of arms extra" they would not feel it at all. It would equal—I have got it written down here—one-tenth of their export surplus, and we are running an export deficit of minus £800 million.
This shows that we are running on a margin of catastrophe while the U.S.A.

has vast wealth to spare. Yet the Americans are axing their arms this year; they have axed from 65 million dollars to 52 million dollars. I know that these are things not talked about a great deal in polite society. But I suggest that if they can axe out of their affluence, it is our job to reduce our programme and defence plan to what, if we make a real effort and work really hard, we can sustain and just get through. That is my answer to my right hon. Friend. It is only a suggestion, and I cannot claim to have the figures.

Mr. Shinwell: It is better that we should elucidate this point so that there might be no confusion. My hon. Friend now hazards a guess that he would reduce the arms programme by £250 million. Obviously, he does not mean that the whole of that should be on production.

Mr. Crossman: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: The whole of it on production?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, if my right hon. Friend followed my argument.

Mr. Shinwell: If the whole of that is to be made on production, does not my hon. Friend see that there is no point in providing the formations, the manpower, the airfields and works services, if, for a long time, we do not provide them with the necessary products?

Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend is now apparently just grasping the realities of the problem we have to face. If I may say so to him, it is really no good having the airfields and the aeroplanes if we are bankrupt. If the choice is to retard the programme or to be bankrupt, I am putting to the House that it is about time we decided to retard the programme, even if it gravely inconveniences the Chiefs of Staff.
That brings me to the very last thing that I want to say. I do not deny that we must contribute our fair share to the defence of the free world. I think that our mistake has been that we have contributed more than our fair share militarily in the last five years and far more than we could afford. What is the real contribution of Britain to the defence of the free world? Is it merely so many tanks or aeroplanes?
Have we no other contribution to make to the free world and to its defence except a number of tanks and aeroplanes? Are we to destroy the Welfare State which we have built in order slightly to increase the number of tanks and aeroplanes available to N.A.T.O. Are we really to drive ourselves to national insolvency because we want to get rather more armaments this year than a sensible man knows we can get?
Are we to destroy our national independence—which gives us our power and influence in world policy—merely because we first plan an armaments drive and then find that we cannot get the dollars? We cannot do it without dollars—and if the Prime Minister has his way, we shall have to reckon on the dollars before we know the political conditions and then accept them under any political conditions, however severe, because we cannot do without them? Is that sanity?
I beg my hon. Friends on this side of the House at least to recognise that if they vote for the Amendment this evening, each and every one of them is tying himself to support the Tory arms programme and the Tory policy of military containment. If they do not understand that now, they will understand it in six months time. But then it will be too late. Let us understand it at 10 o'clock. when the vote is taken.

6.52 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was interesting and typical of many speeches which the hon. Gentleman has made in this House. I should like to say one word in regard to the Report which has just been issued by the Estimates Committee on rearmament, and which hardly supports some of the matters to which he has drawn the attention of the House.
I think that it is necessary, when we are taking part in a defence debate in very critical days, to get the facts quite clearly before all of us, so that we may appreciate the difficulties that confront Her Majesty's Government. First, the thing which I think we are all agreed about is that there must be a review of the armament programme as originally laid down. The reason is that circumstances have arisen recently, which the

late Government could not possibly have foretold, but which have altered the situation very considerably.
By this I mean that the advance lately in research and development has indicated that if we produce modern equipment and weapons on a mass basis in an economy such as we have, which is limited because of our economic necessity, it inevitably means that we are turning out obsolescent machinery. Therefore, I believe that there ought to be a very careful review by the experts of whether or not the time has come to reconsider the types of armaments we are producing in this country with our limited means.
There is one other matter to which I think we must draw attention. It is mentioned in the second Report of the Estimates Committee which deals with the shortage of essential tools, such as machine tools and other things that we need. I should like to give the House some figures which indicate the enormous extra burden that falls on the taxpayer here, and which, I believe, ought to be removed if we are to get production up to the standard we want.
A machine tool of a certain type can be produced in this country at a cost of £2,700. We are so short of skilled labour in that particular industry that it is exceedingly difficult to get the production of that machine tool in this country, and therefore the Ministry of Supply have been forced to go outside this country and pay vastly larger sums to get exactly the same tool.
But I doubt whether the House realises what has to be paid for a machine tool which can be got here for £2,700. We have to pay the Germans £10,000 for that machine tool, and if we get it from the United States, it costs us £16,000. That is a weight on us and on our re-armament programme which surely ought to be looked at, so that in some way or another we can have some arrangement with the United States by which we get machine tools from them, if we cannot produce them here, at a price far more reasonable than we are having to pay.
One of the reasons the United States are putting the price so high is that they say that they do not want us to have these machine tools, because if they cone to this country they will not be put to such full use as they would be in the United


States, where they are working double-shift time in the armament industry. It may be an unpopular thing to say, but we have to say it in this debate, that one of the reasons we are falling back in our production is that we are not working in our factories and industries to the same extent as they are in the United States, where they are double-banking their workers, and the result is that our machinery and labour are not used to the maximum.
I feel that the last thing that one wants to do in the House of Commons is to lecture the workers on more production; we have had quite enough of that; but I feel very strongly that if we are to achieve the programme which we are trying to get, the question of increased work and increased number of hours worked during the week ought to be looked at, because unless we do that—and everyone realises the urgency of the situation—we are going to be in a very difficult position in regard both to exports and armaments.
May I say one word in regard to increased output? I feel that today there are a great many people in certain key industries which are vital to our re-armament programme who avowedly do not want the re-armament programme to succeed, and I think those people who are putting up such a gallant fight—the leaders of the trade union movement—against subversive elements ought to have our sympathy and support in every possible way. I feel that is a matter which ought to be mentioned when we are not able at this time to guarantee, as we did before, that all people working in this country have what we believe to be necessary for their defence.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a clear understanding that at this moment restriction in the output of metal-working industries is not because machines are not being double-shifted, but because in some places there is not the labour and in other places there is not the material. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, with very great respect, that it is a little hollow to ask men to give more production per hour when they run out of work every Thursday morning because of shortage of raw materials?

Sir R. Glyn: I quite agree that there are great difficulties about the supply of

materials, and we know that there is a shortage of steel, but we understand from the evidence we have that the steel situation will improve in the third quarter of this year, and I hope that a great deal of that steel will be utilised for the export programme.
But there are other matters which I think we ought to mention in regard to these subversive elements. I think that it is necessary to say that there are certain organisations set up in the country which are called the Federation of Trades Councils. These organisations are passing resolutions and frankly saying that they do not believe in the re-armament programme, and they are not encouraging their workers to do what we think is necessary if we are to get the required output.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Coventry, East, appreciates the fact that the time it takes to produce an aircraft, a tank or any other weapon is continually increasing and that it is not the slightest use thinking that the severe weight of the cost of re-armament will be lighter, for it will get heavier and heavier each year. I believe that the rate of production now indicates that the heaviest burden will have to be borne by the taxpayers of this country in 1956–57.
Nobody knows what the international situation will be by then, but I believe that all of us appreciate that, if we cannot get higher production for both export and armament, this country will be in a bankrupt condition unless the whole matter is considered afresh. The situation is desperately serious.
Attention ought also to be drawn to the dispersal of our main armament work. We know very well that this country will certainly be a target if war should occur. I am one of those who believe, as the Prime Minister said earlier, that the chances of war are mercifully receding. At the same time, it is our business to try to get within the British Commonwealth increased capacity for the production of armaments from every point of view, and we should encourage that in every way.
Standardisation has not yet been carried far enough. It would be very much better to arrange between ourselves, the United States and the countries


of the Commonwealth a cycle of production. While one type of aircraft was in production here another type would be coming along to full production in the United States and there could be another one in Canada, and we could be retooling and getting ready for the latest type that science and research can give us. There should be an interchange of these things as between all the N.A.T.O. nations instead of our trying to make little bits of everything, which we certainly cannot afford to do.
When we talk about the £4,000 million, how many of us appreciate that that figure includes the cost of the wars in Korea and Malaya? Those matters are extraneous to normal re-armament but they are not outside the strategic plans of Russia, because it is obviously Russia's business to tie down as many troops as possible as far distant as possible from the homeland, for that increases the burden and decreases the amount of money available for re-armament in the home country.
Irrespective of party, hon. Members ought to agree that the safety of this country is the paramount consideration that we all ought to have. I believe that in initiating that programme the Socialist Government did only what was right, and they had the support of the Conservative Party, but we ought now to review the situation and consider to what extent we appreciate the realities of the situation.
Do not let us be deluded by figures, for we are now finding that it is costing more in order to obtain less in materials. If that is the position, I should have thought that this was a matter far above party politics. I do not think it is any use trying to score party points one way or the other. We shall not get the people to appreciate the realities and dangers of the situation from an economic or war point of view as long as we continue playing party politics. If we do that, people will feel that the situation cannot be as serious as we say it is.
It is a very serious decision which the House has to take. I am very sorry that there is to be a Division on defence. In the old days the House was always united on national needs, and this is a very great national need.
It is time to say something about the dangers inside the country and the need

for establishing some security organisation to meet the needs not only of ourselves but also of the countries of the Commonwealth. We cannot be blind to the fact that an organisation of a disruptive character is at work in Canada, Australia, South Africa and here. Some of us know some of the details about it. The trades which are particularly affected are the ones that matter most from a defence point of view, including transport, the docks, engineering and electronics.
We have not now representatives of the Communist Party sitting in this House as Members of Parliament, but do not let us be deluded into thinking that they are idle because they are not sitting here. The work that they are doing in getting inside industries of a vital kind, undermining the position of respected trade union leaders and doing everything they can to disorganise organised labour, indicates the length to which Communism will go to achieve its ends.
I feel that the danger within is far greater than the danger without. The other day the Foreign Secretary said that, when carrying through our policy, we should be sure not to ignore the state of prosperity in this country, for that would be allowing Communism to enter by the back door.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: It is always a pleasure to listen to the speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I might almost say that it is an honour to follow him. I had that honour the first time I spoke in a defence debate in this House. As on that occasion, he has tonight given the House some very sound advice. I hope he will forgive me if I spend a little more time in dealing with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), than in dealing with his.
In the past I have very often found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, and I hope there will be many future occasions on which we shall be in agreement, but I am not in agreement with him tonight. He has got his priorities wrong, and I want to tell him why.
First of all, he ought to have read with a little more care than he has done the statement made by my right hon. Friend


the Leader of the Opposition in this House on 29th January, 1951. My hon. Friend has not made a startling discovery in finding that there are difficulties in carrying through the re-armament programme. My right hon. Friend knew there would be difficulties, and he went out of his way to warn the House and the country that those difficulties would be very great. The statement by my right hon. Friend appears in Command Paper No. 8146, in paragraph 15 of which he said:
I should once more call attention to the limitation on production which I mentioned earlier"—
that was in paragraph 13—
and to the fact that these limitations may make it impossible to spend this sum within that period.
In paragraph 13 my right hon. Friend pointed out in some detail that there were likely to be difficulties arising from an inadequate supply of materials, components and machine tools, and it is not untrue to say that his statement left the House with the definite impression that the expenditure of £4,700 million was a target. If my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, will turn to the White Paper which we were asked to affirm, he will find in paragraph 2 these words which were probably taken over from the previous Government:
The rate of progress must also inevitably be affected by the grave worsening of the United Kingdom's balance of payments which has taken place since the defence programme was launched.
The hon. Member for Abingdon made a more substantial case than my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. The Report to which he referred, which was published a few days ago, made a very carefully documented case for caution in believing that the arms programme, which we are asked to approve, can be carried through without substantial cuts during the coming months or during the present financial year.
Nevertheless despite the certainty of grave economic difficulties in the months ahead, it is not good enough for hon. Members to come to this House and say, "There are going to be difficulties, and therefore we must reject the White Paper." The facts are that we have called up thousands of young men who are deployed all over the world. Many of these men are carrying out operational or near-operational roles, and

surely they are not to be left without stores or equipment? Surely they are not to be left on the end of the limb, because the House of Commons has got cold feet and will not see through the programme which we launched a year ago?
We cannot suddenly in these matters turn round and say, "We have made a mistake. The programme ought to be much less than it is. Therefore, we are going to reject the policy." As I have already said, it is likely, because of the worsening economic situation, that we shall not be able to fulfil the programme.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Was my hon. Friend not conscious of the fact, when the target was originally fixed at £4,700 million, that there was likely to be a balance of payments question?

Mr. Wigg: I am not gifted with second sight. I certainly knew that the programme of £4,700 million was going to create great difficulties for this country. When the Prime Minister a year ago, as Leader of the Opposition, made his speech on defence, I thought it was a statement of great gravity, and that it would create such economic and political difficulties that it would be almost impossible to carry the programme through. The economic and political difficulties which have arisen since that time justify my view.
I give the point to my hon. Friend that it is practically certain that in a year's time those who want to do so can turn round and say, "I told you so," but the practical way of tackling this problem is not to stop in mid-stream. If we want to cut back the arms programme we may have to shed some of our commitments and scale down the length of National Service, because if young men are called up for a period of years and we undertake commitments those are the factors which will decide how much we should spend on stores, transport, pay and the like.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East overlooked the fact that once a period of two years' service is adopted, it is bound to be an expensive business equipping and feeding the resulting formations. It is an odd fact that a number of my hon. Friends who have criticised compulsory military service and have argued that the men can be got if the Government pay enough, overlook


the expense aspect of the matter. They seem to forget that the arms bill includes a large element of pay.
It must be borne in mind that nearly £1,000 million is going to be spent on pay, accommodation, transport and the like. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, stresses too much the amount that is spent on equipment, and fails to realise that there are some factors in the bill which cannot be cut down because to do so would create chaos. It may well be that during the course of the coming year the programme will have to be slowed down because of a worsening economic situation. Nevertheless, in all honesty I could not turn round at the present moment and say that I reject the defence policy, having a year ago gone into the Lobby in favour of it.
I now want to say a word or two about the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon. In my view, that speech was almost as deplorable as the one he made a year ago. I should have thought that as Prime Minister and as Minister of Defence he would have come to the House of Commons and the first thing he would have told us was about the organisational—if I may use that word—set-up of the new Ministry of Defence. What are to be the future relations between the very distinguished officer with no political experience who occupies the role of Minister of Defence with the other Service Ministers and the Ministry of Supply? What are to be his relations with the Chiefs of Staff? I have conceded to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, and to the hon. Member for Abingdon, that the question of supplies is of very great importance indeed. It is not only a question of economy, but of getting value for money quickly and getting the most modern and the best equipment that we can as quickly as possible.
Whatever may be said of Field-Marshal Alexander, he has no knowledge of industry, and I should have thought that a Minister of Defence at the present time ought to be someone much nearer to a Minister of Production than to a strategist. I was extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition way back in December made the point that he doubted the wisdom of appointing a distinguished soldier as Minister of Defence. I endorse that view, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us tonight a little more about what are

the responsibilities of the Minister of Defence in connection with production. Will he be in a position to issue instructions to the Minister of Supply? To what extent will he be made aware of shortages in the three Service Departments? To what extent will he be able to give directions on policy outside the decisions of the Cabinet and the Defence Committee? Will the Minister of Defence be at the head of the bracket of the three Service Ministers with a supervisory role over the Ministry of Supply? It is very important that we should hear something about all this.
I want to turn now to another matter. The Prime Minister this afternoon told us that our defences were naked. I presume he said that in order to permit of scare headlines in the "Daily Mail" and kindred newspapers tomorrow morning. We have been told that we have 11 divisions overseas carrying out vital roles, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the first to complain if those roles had not been undertaken. Surely they cannot complain because those troops are not now in this country.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us a very peculiar thing. He mentioned the 200,000 men who are left in this country and he said that he had decided that they are being trained for a combat role. I have never heard anything more stupid than this. The Army is short of tradesmen, technicians, storemen and clerks. The Royal Air Force is short of technicians and tradesmen, and the men employed as tradesmen, clerks or storemen are, in fact, doing a job of great importance.
Take the case of Chilwell. This is a very large depot employing large numbers of soldiers and civilians. What happens to production while the troops are being trained? Does the depot close? Are these troops trained in the carrying out of tactical schemes or do they, under the directions of the Secretary of State for War, spend their time on ceremonial drill? I think the Prime Minister's statement on this point is a piece of nonsense. Surely before the House and the country can judge of the wisdom of the action of the Prime Minister, we should be told what production has been lost by this change of policy. How many thousands of tons of stores, which ought to be on


their way to Malaya and Korea, are still in the sheds of this country because somebody has been blancoing his belt?

Mr. I. Harvey: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is rather suggesting that the paragraph to which he is referring in the White Paper deals purely with people on the establishment. It seems to me simply that a large number of people who are actually in training will be called upon to exercise the normal role of self-defence. There is no question of ceremonial duties. I think the hon. Gentleman is unfair.

Mr. Wigg: I may be unfair. I hope I am not. It is true that a number of troops will be under training, but those under training will not be worth a terrible lot because they are learning their job. The Prime Minister made the point that 11 divisions have gone and that there were 200,000 men left behind in this country. I say that a very considerable number of these men must be employed in installation, doing jobs in relation to production, and that there is no point at all in directing tradesmen to combat roles, particularly as the Prime Minister has said that the danger of war is not imminent. Why should we train men in operational roles when they are not likely to be used?

Major Sydney Markham: Surely the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that it was the tradesmen and the installation men who helped to turn the Battle of Mons and that it was these same men who helped us to stand firmly at Dunkirk. Every man, whatever his role is, should be trained in combatant duties. The Prime Minister's decision is the wisest that this House has heard.

Mr. Wigg: Every soldier is trained in combatant duties and is taught to handle personal weapons, but the Prime Minister has painted a picture, first of war not being imminent and then of turning tradesmen over to combatant roles. Those statements are contradictory, and the action of the Prime Minister is a piece of window-dressing nonsense.
There is one subject which is very near to the heart of the Parliamentary Secretary. I listened with very great interest when the Prime Minister was talking about the M.I.G.15. The Parliamentary

Secretary will now understand why I say that he is interested because he will remember a Question in which he suggested that the M.I.G.15 was a good plane because we had sold aero-engines to the Russians. This afternoon, the Prime Minister did not say anything about engines at all but talked about the design of the M.I.G.15. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will square the Parliamentary answer to which I have referred with the statement made by the Prime Minister. There seemed to be accent on design this afternoon and on engines on the previous occasion.
When we assess the disarmament burden borne by this country, we are apt only to include in the balance sheet those things for which we expend cash. There is another item which ought to be included but unfortunately is not. Here in Britain we have compulsory military service for two years. We are, I think, the only country in Europe—certainly in the Commonwealth—which has a period of military service anything like it. The consequence is that in Canada the total armed force at the present moment is about 35,000. The total strength of the Army of Australia is 24,000 and of New Zealand about 2,000. I am talking about Regular strength. They have no National Service worthy of the name.
I remember all the defence debates which have taken place in this House since the end of the war. I remember vividly the defence debate of 1946, when the spokesmen for the party opposite was the present Foreign Secretary and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when one of the essential ingredients of policy put forward on behalf of the Conservative Party was the development of Commonwealth defence and of the Colonial Forces. If we read the Defence White Papers, published in recent years there is to be found a reference to the information of the development of Colonial Forces and Commonwealth defence. The present White Paper is the first since the end of the war in which nothing substantial is said about Commonwealth defence. A year ago, on the initiative of the Tory Party, we had a day's debate on the organisation of the Colonial Army. This year the need for developing Commonwealth defence is forgotten. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why?
I should very much like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government are fully aware of the excessive period of military service—I think it is excessive—which the young men of this country are called upon to carry out, particularly when compared with what is happening throughout the Commonwealth and in the N.A.T.O. countries. I hope that in future conversations with Commonwealth countries and at N.A.T.O., he will urge the desirability of their undertaking a period of compulsory military service something similar to what we have here. I should like to know why, in 1952, after all the stories we have been given about "vast reservoirs of manpower in the Colonies," there is nothing in the White Paper about it and that we heard nothing on that subject from the Prime Minister this afternoon.
I must apologise for taking up so much time, but I hope I have made my position quite clear. I would not be prepared to vote against the White Paper on this occasion, but I certainly have no confidence at all either in the Prime Minister or in his Service colleagues nor, may I say, in the Minister of Supply, and I hope very much indeed, for the country's sake, that my worst fears will not be realised.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: In rising to address this House for the first time, I hope that I may obtain the necessary indulgence from the House for the few remarks that I have to make. I do not imagine that these will be provocative, as I want to address them to Part VII of the White Paper which deals with Civil Defence. I will reserve what ideas I have about provocation to a future occasion, when perhaps the House will not be so kind.
In Part VII, reference is made to one particular point in Civil Defence, which is the question of morale. There is no contention about the standard of morale which comes from having Civil Defence at home. As one who spent six years in the last war out of this country, I can testify to the contribution to morale in the Fighting Services abroad which was given by an adequate Civil Defence at home. I want to leave that thought with the House in the constructive

suggestion—I hope it will be considered constructive—which I wish to make.
It will be within the knowledge of the House that Civil Defence volunteers are not coming forward in the numbers desired. We have recently heard a broadcast to that effect. I am happy to see that reference is made in Part VII to the steadily increasing rate of recruitment since July, 1950. I should like to give two reasons, as I see the matter, why Civil Defence recruiting has not gone forward at the rate that we should wish. I would, in parenthesis, leave one thought with the House, and perhaps with some members of the public who may consider this matter of Civil Defence. Let us all remember that the miracle of Dunkirk would have been wasted if the troops had not been able to come back to a country which was in a proper state of order.
The first of the two reasons why I think people are holding back from recruitment to Civil Defence is the old reason that many people think that when war becomes more imminent it is possible to accelerate the speed and efficiency of Civil Defence. In that respect I want to remind hon. Members of one remark made by the Prime Minister this afternoon about the Home Guard, when he said he would warn those who were hesitating to be careful not to leave it too late. The same remark may apply to those who are holding back on Civil Defence.
In just the same way as our re-arming for strength is a deterrent to any aggressor in lands abroad, I am quite certain that the efficiency of the Civil Defence of any country is an adequate deterrent to any aggressor who may contemplate embarking upon war. In these days of both conventional and unconventional weapons, people manning the Civil Defence services are in the front line of attack, and so those contemplating aggression pay due regard to the state of those Civil Defence services. I want to emphasise that the very complexity of the weapons, conventional and otherwise, which would be brought to bear in a future war is an even greater reason why our state of preparedness in Civil Defence should start much earlier and not be left one day longer than is necessary.
The second reason is one which I think people in this land ought not to be too happy about. It is that it has got about


that, owing to the dire results of the use of unconventional weapons, a certain measure of civil defence is, to put it baldly, a waste of time. Those remarks have been made by responsible people, not in this House, but in other spheres in my presence, and I deprecate them strongly.
I want to remind hon. Members and the public that there is hardly anything which has been invented by man for which man has not also been able to invent an antidote. That is as true in Civil Defence and as regards unconventional weapons as in any other department of life. If it is true that people are holding back from Civil Defence because they think its usefulness is at a minimum as a result of these weapons, I want to assure them that there are and can be and will be safeguards to provide proper protection from those unconventional weapons, always provided that the manpower is available at the right time to give us the adequate defence.
Now I want to make two constructive suggestions to those responsible for the publicity of Civil Defence services. First, I think more should be done to provide places in our various centres equivalent to tactical schools in the Army. I have had the opportunity and pleasure of visiting the Civil Defence College in Surrey. Both there and in other centres, in addition to the theoretical knowledge given to instructors and local authorities, there should be something equivalent to a tactical school where actual visual demonstrations of the dangers can be given. I want to leave with those responsible at the Home Office the thought that tactical schools should be set up as early as possible, because I regard them as a necessary part of our armament for defence.
I hope that my second suggestion, which is a rather novel one, is also constructive. I am aware that most of what can be done has been done by the advertising for enlistment to Civil Defence. However this country, like the United States of America, is rich in societies and associations of every kind. I suggest that the Home Office should consult with the larger and more responsible societies about the possibility of their officers doing their utmost to bring to the notice of their members the necessity for joining

Civil Defence. I am not referring to political societies when I say that many hon. Members are familiar with societies whose membership numbers thousands. If they could be made to co-operate in this worth-while matter, I am sure that some recruits for Civil Defence could be found amongst their members.
Some weeks ago I had the honour of being present at the opening of a new Civil Defence headquarters in my constituency. It is a very fine place indeed and any club, expensive or otherwise, would be pleased to have such headquarters. The keynote of the opening proceedings was the fact that the original Civil Defence people from the last war were there still as a nucleus of the new organisation; in fact, one of those on the platform had been in it continuously since the end of the war. The fullest possible use should be made of the nuclei of those associations which still exist. To some extent the same thing is true of the Home Guard association of the last war which still exists.
I notice that Section VII is at the end of the White Paper and that at the moment there is not much in the way of physical development or resources for the Civil Defence service. That may or may not be right, and I would not presume to criticise it. However, I am sure that, as the Navy, Army and Air Force are the three arms of the defence of our country and the Commonwealth, today we should join with them the fourth, that is, Civil Defence. I see little point in our winning great and glorious battles overseas, on the sea, or in the air if our structure at home is not in a state of equilibrium in order to keep up the morale of all concerned. May I leave this general thought with hon. Members: that in future defence should be regarded as a four-square matter, namely, that the Navy, Army, Air Force and Civil Defence are four integral and concrete parts of the same organisation?

7.38 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), upon the excellent speech which he has just delivered to the House.
It always seems to me a great pity that the custom of the House is that nobody takes any notice of maiden speeches.


Listening, as I have done, to a number of maiden speeches in the last few days, it occurs to me that men often make their best speeches on that occasion. I hope the hon. Member may continue in the fine style in which he has begun. He spoke with confidence and knowledge and, as long as he maintains that high standard, he will not only have the welcome ear of the House but, what is even more interesting, will often be interrupted.
I shall begin by quoting as a text a sentence used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), to whom we always listen with great respect and even with affection. He said that the safety of the country was paramount and that the main concern of all hon. Members was to maintain that safety. On that there will be agreement on all sides, but when it comes to a discussion about how the safety of the country is to be maintained there will be much more disagreement as, indeed, there has already been.
Hon. Members opposite have in the main taken the view that the re-armament programme that has been decided upon, and which is the subject of the White Paper, is sacrosanct; that because it has been set down, it must be followed. Some Members on this side of the House have taken roughly the same view. I confess, at the outset, that I do not agree.
I begin by asking myself: What is it that we are now re-arming against? The answer quite clearly is that we are now re-arming against the threat of Soviet aggression, which nobody in the House, and possibly not many people in the country, believes to be an immediate threat. I am not suggesting—I would not go so far as to say—that I think the U.S.S.R. would not attack if it were persuaded that it could do so with some assurance of success.
I think there is no doubt, from past experience of the way in which the Soviet Union has worked among its neighbours, that if Europe were defenceless Russia would expand westwards. That suggests, quite clearly, that it is Europe's duty to have such defences as would make it militarily very expensive for Russia to indulge in European adventures if she were so minded.
I would not, therefore, under any circumstances minimise the importance of the will to defend the British heritage.

But with all that background in mind, and anxious only that the true interests, not of any party nor of those who agree with my point of view, but of the country, might be served I suggest that this moment demands from us some rethinking about the relationship between the aims of the White Paper and reality.
I do not wish to be acrimonious, but it can truly be said that events have proved that there was very little real relation between our aims and reality when the £4,700 million re-armament programme was decided upon. It was decided upon 12 months ago, as we have already been told, at a time of panic.
According to the White Paper itself, we did not have then, and we do not have now, the raw materials, the machine tools, the manpower or, indeed, the economic resources that will enable us to fulfil that original programme. It may be that at the time the programme was devised—I was not then in the confidence of the Government any more than I am now—at a time of panic, when the Communists looked as though they might go on to the offensive, it was right to make an obvious splash of a defence programme. I do not believe that it can be right now, in the light of what we have learned since, to persist in a programme which is admittedly beyond our power and which is, in any case, largely irrelevant to the present international situation.
I have no wish to detain the House by going again over ground that was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). It is enough to underline what he said, because I think it is now indisputable that our defence programme is strangling our economic life. The cumulative effect of our dollar and sterling difficulties, aggravated, as they are, and as they will continue to be, by continually restricting exports, and by the fact of world inflation, may make it hardly possible not only for Britain, but for Europe as a whole, to survive unless there is some change, some reconsideration of the whole defence programme of Europe.
It is already clear that among the first casualties of the cold war and of the re-armament programme, is the European economy. I do not want to go at any length into the question of tho effect upon the standard of living of our


own people—other Members have spoken about that: but we have reached an absurd position economically when there arises the kind of situation which I should like to illustrate by relating something which came to my knowledge within the last few weeks.
In company with other hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), and Paddington, North (Mr. Field)—I went to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to request the supply of 45 tons of steel to build a screening plant to protect the health of the inhabitants of my constituency against the disposal of refuse and sewage. The reply that we got from the Minister was that in view of all our commitments, particularly our commitments for steel, it was utterly impossible to obtain even 45 tons of steel for this service of the public health. That instance can, perhaps, be repeated over and over again in more important respects in the experiences of other hon. Members and people who have come up against a blank wall in our economy which has been created as a result of the re-armament programme.
At home, the effect of the re-armament programme already is, clearly, a serious lowering of the standard of life and, what is perhaps even more important, an increasing restriction of exports, which is our very lifeblood and without which soon we must die. No doubt, if it were right to carry this burden of defence; if we were faced with a situation in which war was imminent, it would have to be borne with, perhaps, heavier burdens. But we are inflicting these burdens upon our people in present circumstances for largely irrelevant purposes.
Do hon. Members opposite believe that Europe alone—that is to say, Europe and not Britain—could now deter the Soviet Union if that country were bent upon aggression? Very few people would deny that it is not Britain's or Europe's intrinsic, nor even their potential, strength that deters any expansionist aims on the part of the U.S.S.R. Surely Europe's real safeguard is the certainty of United States intervention in the event of a Soviet invasion. If that deterrent should fail, I

believe that continental Europe could hardly long survive.

Mr. Anthony. Fell: Is the hon. Member really saying he believes that, on the one hand, for us war is not imminent and that, therefore, we should not arm, but that it is imminent for America and, therefore, they should arm to protect us? This easy, vote-catching argument, this being on the right side of the fence for all the electorate, doing the thing that is popular, is so easy to put over, but he can only do so if he is convinced that he can safely say that there is no chance whatever of aggression from Russia.

Mr. Williams: I am not surprised that the hon. Member should have such a close acquaintance with vote-catching, as I fought him on two occasions and on both occasions he revealed his methods. There are two things I would like to say about his interruption. The first is that in any case America is not now straining its economy, but Britain is straining hers. Productivity of non-re-armament goods in America has gone up considerably side by side with re-armament. The standard of living in America has gone up and the real wages of American workers have gone up.

Mr. Fell: So what?

Mr. Williams: So this: all these things in Britain have gone down and we are straining our economy. I am not suggesting that in fact war is imminent for America, I am saying that if war were imminent and if Russia wanted to attack the one thing which would restrain Russia is American strength. I think that is self-evident.
I did not say that we ought not to re-arm. I said that we ought not to re-arm at this level, at this cost. I merely say that if Russia is restrained from aggression in Western Europe it is because she is afraid, rightly in my judgment, of the tremendous economic power of the United States and her over-riding potential strength.
That is not to say that I believe all defence to be useless. On the other hand, I said, and repeat, that to discourage direct attacks in these international political circumstances it does not need a re-armament programme of £4,700


million, with all the economic consequences that has for this country. It is merely to say that that figure, that huge re-armament programme, is beyond our capacity to bear and is irrelevant because it will not of itself ever serve as a deterrent against a country determined on aggression.
I suggest, therefore, that the mistake that is contained in, and the underlying error of this White Paper on Defence is attempting by our present programme to re-arm to a level which will neither deter aggression nor save us from destruction if war were to come. Britain's arms programme, great as it is, will not ensure a second successful Battle of Britain in an atomic war.
It seems, therefore, that to prepare for a war in whose outcome our own interests would be merely academic, Britain has burdened herself with a defence programme that is literally killing and the longer it goes on the more difficult it will be to re-organise production so that we can stand upon our own feet. Perhaps the final indictment of the programme is that it is increasingly making us dependent on America so that there will be no possibility if we continue at this level of ever escaping and being independent again.
As I see it the real challenge is in the realm of ideas and that conflict we are losing. Already, without Russia sending a single soldier, or firing a single gun, the Western Powers are deeply committed in minor wars all over the world. I am assured, for instance, that even if we were to return to the radical programme of £3,000 million for three years with £600 million aid from the United States, which I hope with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, will be in the form of finished armaments, we would be able to make an increase of something like £300 million a year in exports, which would bridge the greater part of our gap at the moment.
The recovered wealth could be used not only to increase the standard of living of the people of this country, but could be used—and this is an important item of defence—to ensure a new deal in world affairs. For the greater part of the world—outside Britain and Russia—the present re-armament of Europe spells despair. Because of it, millions of

people in Asia and Africa who are already living in squalor must abandon all hope of a higher standard of living. Their misery is offering, and has offered, a fertile ground for Soviet propaganda, which has already been successful in exploiting their grievances. Re-armament by accentuating their privations is directly increasing the danger in which the world stands.
In this battle I believe that Marshall Aid, on a world scale, the wider use of the Four Point Programme, an extension of the Colombo and Reuther Plans for colonial development and development of backward areas of the world would be far stronger bulwarks of peace than this re-armament programme to which we are committed. These are the very schemes that the cold war is increasingly putting into cold storage and by so doing aggravating the social crises out of which the Soviet Union has already won its most significant victories. World re-armament on this scale will do nothing more surely than prevent the possibility of a world fair deal.
The recognition of the over-riding priority for re-armament in these conditions is actually weakening the chance of creating a new modus vivendi between the nations of the world. I believe that if we could, not abandon re-armament, but reconsider it, and reconsider it in the light of the other commitments laid upon us for economic and world fair shares, we would be doing far more to make possible a lasting peace than we will be doing by supporting this White Paper or the defence measures of this Government.

7.58 p.m.

Captain Robert Ryder: I think the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams), put forward what I considered to be a very dangerous view. However, it represents a point of view put forward by others from below the Gangway opposite, and it differs, I think, from the point of view put forward by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite.
We are presented on this side of the House with a somewhat confusing picture, and I am not sure whether it is for me to intervene in the dispute and difference of opinion which appears to exist on the benches opposite, but I would


say this to the hon. Member for Coventry. East (Mr. Crossman), and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South—that if one approves a large-scale re-armament programme and then comes along the next year and tries to cut it down, one will neither achieve exports nor security. The only thing one will achieve is absolute chaos and confusion.
If I may turn to the point of view of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who opened the debate from the Opposition benches, it seems to me, when one looks back, that the previous Government, in supporting this large re-armament programme, took what I felt to be a courageous and honest step. I felt that they would have gained stature in the country if they had stood by their decision, stood by their guns, and supported the present Government in this re-armament debate, instead of which they are now trying to put forward an Amendment expressing a lack of confidence in the Prime Minister.
What did the right hon. Gentleman opposite have to say on that subject? He picked on the de-nationalisation of steel, which he said would throw a spanner into the works. Surely this is more a case of extracting a spanner that has already been thrown into the works. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the appointment of Lord Alexander as Minister of Defence. I cannot speak for everyone, but it is my firm impression that throughout the Services Lord Alexander is widely respected. He is regarded as a man of great integrity, great vision, and great experience, and he is a person whom I think the country as a whole will be very glad to see in that position. His appointment is certainly no cause for censure on the Prime Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to what he described as the "American Admiral." I should have thought that he himself had played a prominent part in negotiating that North Atlantic appointment and that he was hardly the person to cast aspersions on the Prime Minister for the position which my right hon. Friend was compelled to take over.
The right hon. Gentleman made, I thought, unnecessary and disparaging remarks, not calculated to do any good, about the smaller countries on the Con-

tinent. He referred to Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. I noted down his remarks and he said in effect, "When are you going to play your part?" That is an unnecessary aspersion on some of those countries. I should like to take the case of Norway, a country which, with a very small population, is bringing forward a merchant fleet which is the third largest in the world. And as merchant fleets play a prominent part in the strategic affairs of the free countries of the world, as I see it, a country like Norway is playing a very important part.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member is representing me. What I said—I remember the words exactly, and they will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow—about Norway and Denmark was that they were not playing their part and I gave as the reason the fact that they could not get the requisite amount of equipment. I said "small blame to them." The only country that I criticised was Portugal because, as I said. Portugal, which is a member of N.A.T.O., has not contributed a single man or gun as yet. But, generally speaking, my case was not one of disparaging those European countries but of indicating that adequate defences cannot be built up on the Continent before the requisite equipment is available.

Captain Ryder: If my comments have extracted that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, I feel they have fulfilled a useful purpose. It is important that we should not indulge in bickering against our friends on the Continent, so if what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is his point of view, I am glad he has come forward and said it. But I hardly feel, from what he said, that I am disposed to lose confidence in the Prime Minister.
I wish now to call attention to the general subject before us, the Statement on Defence. Hon. Members will all agree, I think, that we are very much handicapped in these defence debates by the fact that the need for secrecy prevents us from seeing and hearing a great deal that is most important in defence. All that we have, broadly speaking, is a set of financial figures and a few amplifying remarks, from which we have to make our deductions.
The point I wish to make arises out of a comparison of the figures set out for


this year with previous figures. I have taken the figures for 1913, 1938 and 1952, three years in which this country was re-arming, and it is fairly clear that this country has now embarked on what I should call a Continental strategy at the expense of our maritime strength. In 1913—these are only approximate calculations—62 per cent. of the Service Estimates went to the Navy; in 1938 the percentage was 38; in 1952 it is down to 26, or 24 if the Ministry of Supply and Civil Defence are taken into account.
This point of view is reinforced when we read in the Army Estimates that we are heavily committed in Europe, and our Forces form a major part of the striking forces in the West. Then, in the Air Estimates we read that our largest expansion is to be in support of the Second Tactical Air Force on the Continent. That is indeed a Continental strategy.
We have to compare this with the remarks which have been made, for example, by the Prime Minister of New Zealand that British naval forces were so stretched round the world that New Zealand had now to look to the United States for help in Dominion defence. It seems to me, therefore, that this Continental strategy is being made at the expense of our maritime strength.
We have to bear in mind the fact that our population on this island is largely dependent on our position as the centre of a great maritime Commonwealth which spreads to all parts of the world, and it is important for us to maintain our position as the centre of this great maritime organisation. In this our maritime power has acted and still acts as a cohesive factor in keeping the Commonwealth together as a unity.
When we bear in mind the important part that has been played in the past by our fleet in this respect we must be careful that we do not continue blindly into the future policies which have been successfull; but we must consider them. We face in the future a difficult position due to the fact that we are now confronted with a much more serious threat from the air than ever before. In this respect we are faced with a very difficult decision.
We must first get clear in our minds whether in the secret and innermost recesses of our minds we approve these Estimates as being in preparation for a

war which we feel is bound to come, or whether, on the other hand, we approve them in the belief and hope that they will be a deterrent to such a war. That is not an academic distinction. It is a fundamental consideration which should underlie the whole of our basic strategy.
There are two alternatives before us. We can attempt to build up round these islands a barrier in such depth and thickness that we hope it will keep out any modern missile that may be thrown at this country. That seems to me to be the basic plan behind the Continental strategy. On the other hand, we can hope or attempt to sustain and maintain an organisation throughout the world, of which this country is the centre, which is so powerful and united that it must be clear to all that whoever might contemplate making a venture upon these islands must face the fact that a fearful retribution will follow from our friends all over the world, and that it will be sure and remorseless and will achieve the utter defeat in the long run of whoever may attempt ambitions in that direction. It is the power of the deterrent rather than the pinning of one's faith in a barricade.
When we consider these alternatives, it seems to me that the prospect of building up a barricade of such a kind as I have mentioned is open to grave doubts. In any case it is fair to say that there is no evidence before us which warrants any suggestion that a war is inevitable. There is no evidence before us to warrant this country dismantling headquarters, as it were, and taking up its position on the perimeter defences. If we do that we shall inevitably lose a great deal of our influence throughout the free world. As a desperate temporary expedient it may well be necessary for us to bolster up our friends on the Continent and attempt to prevent any further infiltration into the West of Europe. But what is to happen if we lose our position as the centre of the great maritime Commonwealth we have established? What is to happen to us on this overcrowded island. Should we not take heed of the remarks of the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
Let us consider our history. There was a time when this country embarked extensively on a Continental policy. We bled ourselves white in war after war on the Continent. And it was not until we lost Calais that we embarked on our


great expansion in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and this country began to expand and develop its strength in all parts of the world and become a great country. Are we wise to make this fundamental change in our strategy? Let us look at the example of Spain and what happened to her when her sea power was wrested from her and see how her standard of living was lowered in consequence. Or consider the Dutch and what happened to them when they came to rely upon British power to protect their interests overseas.
As I have said, as a desperate and temporary expedient I would support the policy of bolstering up our friends, but I believe that if we pursue that policy too far and accept it as our basic strategy, then there is little future for his country with its overcrowded population. If we dismantle the headquarters and accept a position on the perimeter defences, we shall surely be placed in a weak and unenviable position. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friends to think long and think deeply where this Continental strategy will lead us.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. M. Follick: We were given the impression from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the military and industrial output of Russia is greater than that of the rest of the whole world. I cannot believe that. I know Russia fairly well and I have seen industrial development of Russia making great strides. But so has the industrial development of the rest of the world at the same time. We are rather over-exaggerating the military strength and industrial output of Soviet Russia.
If Russia really had wanted to take a chance to attack Europe she would have done so at the time of the Berlin airlift, when we were very weak. Today, it is a different matter. If we have not the great strength we hope to have, we are certainly much stronger than we were at the time of the Berlin airlift or ever dreamed then that we could be. People who know something of the history of Russia must know that Russia can never go to war unless she has the backing of her people. If Russia is expending the

whole of her industrial potential for military purposes she must be neglecting the social welfare of her people and in the event of war they will be the first to turn against their present Government, in the same way as they turned against the Czarist Government in 1917.
One cannot lead an unwilling people into war, and if one tramples down their means of subsistence to give them a military potential strong enough to thrash the whole world, then when the moment comes they will rebel against their Government, because their very existence will be too hard to bear. I am not saying there are no dangers in the world. There are, and I will come to them later.
We are now talking about building Germany again into a military Power because of what is happening in Russia. But whatever we do with Germany will be wrong—whether we incorporate her partly into the European Army, whether we give her full equality of status with the Western nations or whether we prohibit her from having any army at all It will always be wrong. If we incorporate the Germans into the European Army, once they are in they will so move and wriggle about and threaten to break out of the European set-up if they do not get what they want that in the end they will have to be given what they want to keep them in.
If we prohibit them from having arms, all we shall do is to build up their industrial potential. While our young men are in the Army for two years theirs will be in the factories producing goods for export, competing with our exports and beating us because they have no great military set-up to maintain. That is already happening with the Germans in Egypt. I quote the following from an English newspaper:
… with German industry not geared, as the British is, to defence production, it looks as though the Germans are about to score again.
That comment was made when the Germans were tendering for the Assuan Dam hydro-electric project, involving an order valued at £15 million.
If they are not allowed to have an army and conscription and compulsory service, they will be put at an advantage over our people, and therefore will reduce the standard of living of this country, because we shall not be able to compete with them in the export market.


Whatever we do with the Germans will be wrong.
It is also important to remember that it may very well be that if we re-arm Western Germany and the Russians allow Eastern Germany to re-arm, the offer of unification may come from Eastern Germany to Western Germany. If that offer is made we shall find that a large body of West German Communists will be there to welcome it. Not only the Communists, but most patriotic Germans would rather have unification, even at the expense of their political loyalty.
I know the Germans. I was in Germany for three months last year, going in among different classes, including their politicians. I had an interview with the Chancellor and with Herr Schumacher. I saw Herr Schumacher addressing meetings of 12,000 and 15,000 people, and he had the same hypnotic power over the masses in Germany as Hitler used to have, and it may very well be that the next Chancellor of Germany will be Herr Schumacher. Then we shall have in Germany an army which she will be able to use herself for her own purposes.
Turning to the Middle East, where I spent part of December and the whole of January of this year, there are three questions which are troubling the Middle East. There is the question of Palestine; the question of refugees, and the question of the Canal Zone. Internally, the Arabs are split; but externally they have a united policy, and the one policy that is having a most effective influence on the Arabs is the question of the Canal Zone. They look upon that question as their own. I do not know how much use the Canal would actually be in war, but I do know that in two world wars we have not been able to use it.
If we are going to have the Arabs, on one side, hostile to us and the Egyptians on the other side, hostile to us, then the Canal will not be of very much use. The sooner we get that Canal business settled the easier it will be if we have to face up to war in other parts of the world. The part of the world I have in mind is the Far East. The three things are tied together in the same way as they were in the last war, when we had Germany against us in the Atlantic, Italy in the Mediterranean and Japan in the Far

East. In the next world war it may very well be that the greatest danger will come from the Far East and not from Europe.
I first went to Australia shortly after the Russo-Japanese War and the Australians, even at that early date, were very apprehensive about the progress that Japan was making, especially when we formed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. From an apprehension it went to a threat and then it become a real danger. We know that Japan intervened in the last war and that Japan was defeated. Japan lost her territories on the Asiatic mainland. Japan, like Britain, is a nation that has to export to live. Japan cannot live without exports. Even this week in this House we have had complaints that the Japanese industries were competing unfairly with ours, so that, in the course of time, we shall have to raise barriers against Japanese exports to protect our own.
Japan will then be forced on to the mainland of China. Her future can only be reckoned with that of China. There is no other future. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, when Russia began to build her first Five Year Plan, she took tens of thousand of specialists and experts from Austria-Hungary, which had become dissolved, and from Germany, where there was vast unemployment, and built up her industry to form her first Five Year Plan.
China may very well take the experts and specialists from Japan and encourage Japan to export to China, to negotiate with China, and in the end to come in with China. In that case there will not be a nation of 50 million inhabitants threatening her existence, as Australia had in the early part of the century, but a block of 500 million, in an overcrowded state, looking on to an empty continent—the continent of Australia. How are we going to help Australia in a case of that sort? That is the real danger. That is what we have to prepare against.
I am not so sure that this Russian business is the real danger at all. I think Russia will continue to pinprick. But how Australia is to get over the tremendous menace that will come from the East not even Mr. Casey, the Australian Foreign Minister, was able to say when I


put the question to him. He confessed that. He said that over the next 10 years we were able to see fairly clearly, but beyond that he did not know what would happen between China and Japan. Let us not lose our heads over this Russian business. Let us prepare to meet it if it comes, but let us find out, while we still have time, how we are to face up to that greater danger that may threaten a vital part of our Commonwealth.
That is why that part of the Commonwealth may have to leave us and go to another nation which can provide greater protection. This has been discussed in Australia—that they cannot rely on Britain for protection against the East, that they must have the guarantee of some protection from the United States. That is why the Australians are struggling so hard against the Japanese Peace Treaty.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. John Profumo: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) made a very significant remark towards the end of his speech. He said, "Do not let us lose our heads over this Russian business." As far as I can see, the one sure way of losing our heads over this Russian business is to do what hon. Members opposite have advised this afternoon—namely, that we should not go ahead too speedily with the re-armament programme.
When the business was announced at the beginning of the week and we were told that we were to have a defence debate today, I and my hon. Friends assumed that we should discuss the defence of this country. What has happened, however, is that we have had a debate, not so much on national defence, but on the defence of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite. This has been a struggle between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and it has been a most fascinating study.
At the beginning of the debate, I wondered why the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) rose to speak from the Box without any notes at all. I did not know until a long time afterwards that the reason he had said nothing so skilfully and purposely was that he did not wish in any way to fan

the flames of party controversy nor to make any definite statement about what right hon. Gentlemen opposite really believed. Then we had the fantastic spectacle—the most fantastic spectacle the House has witnessed, certainly since the end of the war—of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite arguing amongst each other, shaking their fists, trying to interrupt each other, shaking their heads; and we have heard scarcely any agreement at all.

Mr. William Hamilton: It shows that we are alive.

Mr. Profumo: I did not realise that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), was alive and I am glad to hear that he is. He has taken no part in the debate. I do not want to incite hon. Members at this stage in the evening, however. The star of the bill in today's debate has unquestionably been not the right hon. Member for Easington but the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
As I sat listening—and waiting patiently, as one does, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye—I noticed how suddenly the Chamber filled the moment the hon. Member for Coventry, East, rose to his feet. Who were the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who came into the Chamber at that point? They were all members of the group we now know so well from the headlines in the newspapers, and they were all coming in to hear the understudy of the great chief speaking. It was a magnificent speech.

Mr. Michael Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman had observed very carefully he would have seen that it was not only the personal political friends of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who came into the Chamber but that the benches on the Government side were a great deal more crowded, with hon. Members listening to my hon. Friend, than they are now, with hon. Members listening to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo).

Mr. Profumo: I hope that the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), will not think that it is a question of Coventry being more important than Stratford-on-Avon. It certainly is not. As I am reminded by one of my


hon. Friends, many hon. Members are taking dinner at the moment.
Anyway, it is to hon. Members opposite that I want to address myself. I regarded the speech made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East, as one of the best speeches I have ever heard him make, and it was significant for this fact: what he said was, "Leave it all to the United States of America." I do not want to exaggerate, but what he said, in a nutshell, was, "We cannot afford to do this; we have made a tragic error in the past; my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale"—who was sitting behind him—"warned the country and the House, and it is never too late to learn; at this stage let us leave it to the United States."
For this country to say, in an election year in the United States, that we will not continue to pull our weight but will leave it to them, because we do not think we can afford re-armament, would be a monstrous thing to do. But that was the burden of the hon. Member's speech. He went on to speak about the Amendment which is to be moved, I understand, by the right hon. Gentleman who is the titular head of the party at the moment, and the hon. Member for Coventry, East, said, "Anyone who supports that Amendment will be agreeing to this country committing economic suicide."
He said something even more significant than that. He said, "Any hon. Members who support the Amendment will be committing political suicide"—and he meant in so far as their chances were concerned of ever becoming Front Bench politicians under the new leader of the party. Hon. Members opposite know very well that that has been the crux of the debate. [Interruption.] We do not need to defend ourselves on this side of the House. My right hon. Friends know exactly what they are going to do. The one obvious mistake at this stage would be to have a defence programme which was half-hearted. We should be bound to lose if we did that. Therefore, let not hon. Members opposite be influenced by some of their own hon. Friends too much on this occasion.
I wanted to talk about two aspects of defence. I have time to deal with one only, and so I shall hope to catch your eye, Sir, on another occasion to be able

to talk about the other. In common with many of my hon. Friends, and many hon. Members opposite, too, I am very concerned about the reduction in our broadcasting to overseas countries. Whatever views one may take about domestic broadcasting, I think all will agree that our foreign broadcasts have a very considerable effect on the minds of peoples in other countries.
If these broadcasting activities have been successful and important in the past—as I think they have been—then they are all more important at this stage in our affairs, because it is on the conditions of men's minds that the maintenance of peace really depends, and the only antidote to the poison which is being injected into the minds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain is that given by the voice of the free nations going over the ether by means of our radio.
In my view the maintenance of our overseas broadcasts should be regarded not as part of our normal peacetime expenditure but as a significant part of our defence budget. It was all very well for hon. Members opposite to become self-righteous earlier on today about this, but it will be within the recollection of the House that last year the Socialist Government intended to cut the grant in aid for overseas broadcasting, and it has been done two or three times before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has realised the importance of leaving this service free from cuts because action is required to counter Soviet jamming and because of increased expenses.
However, it does still mean that many people in Soviet-dominated areas are to be denied the advice, the news, the truth which they have been getting from the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, although I quite agree that the B.B.C. must take its share of the economies, it does seem to me that it is just as much against the national interest to reduce our psychological striking power as it would be to lose or diminish our military striking power at this moment.
The justification for these economies is all the more questionable when one realises that there will be a considerable reduction in broadcasting for the want of something like £150,000, or, to put it in the vernacular, the cost of the "front end" of a Comet aeroplane. Once those audiences are lost it will be extremely


difficult to get them back again. Surely this is the time of all times when there should be no muting of the voice of freedom or the voice of Britain.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence—whom we congratulate upon his new appointment, as, also, we congratulate the illustrious and noble Lord Alexander on his appointment as Minister of Defence—three questions: first, has the decision to peg the grant-in-aid been taken in relation to its effect on the defence programme? It does not seem to me that this is an entirely Foreign Office affair, and it is certainly not entirely a domestic one. It is a problem of defence. Has it been considered in the light of the defence programme?
Second, will my hon. Friend consider that the finance which is required to counter jamming by the Soviet stations being provided by an additional grant? Third, will he try to get an agreement with right hon. Gentlemen opposite on a long-term policy for our overseas broadcasting which would give the B.B.C. the knowledge that it could carry on its policy for many years to come, and which would remain unchanged even if it cost more, and even if there happened to be a change of Government?
The other aspect of defence I wanted to speak about was the problem of the Royal Air Force, but it is too big a problem for me to deal with now. I will venture only one or two words upon it. I would point out the real difficulty of any Government today is to apportion the resources of the nation—the financial resources, the manpower resources, and the raw material resources—adequately between the requirements of defence and the requirements of the export trade. That is the problem.
There is one section of our air arm which can help the nation in both those respects, and that is our air transport. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he says that first priority must be afforded, above anything else, to building up modern striking aircraft of the fighter type. There was a considerable exchange, earlier in the debate, which resulted from our being told by the Opposition that we were lagging behind to a very great degree in fighter efficiency compared with the Soviet

Union. We are. Can anybody wonder at that when we have had a Government which did two things over the past six years?
First of all, they were very loath to place orders for fighter aircraft. It is all very well for the former Secretary of State for Air to say that the Socialist Government started and completed negotiations with the United States over the Sabre jet engine. Maybe they did. But they had not the foggiest idea when we would get them—not the foggiest idea. Today, the Prime Minister told us that at last they are coming in the foreseeable future.
The Labour Government were loath to place orders, and when they did place orders they sold our jet engines to the Soviet Union. It is no good the right hon. Member for Easington trying to get away with that by saying that they were on the open list. Who placed them on the open list? Who was responsible? The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment to hear that question, but I do not know whether any other hon. Member opposite can tell us who was responsible for allowing those highly important engines to be sold to the only existing potential aggressor.
Who was responsible? The Labour Party. The Leader of the Opposition sits back and smiles. I know that he will be speaking at any moment now, and I sincerely hope that he will be able to reply to that question during his speech. Were not those engines only allowed to be sold under licence? I am convinced that that was so. Who was responsible for giving licences to the manufacturers to sell to the Soviet Union, who were thus able to develop those machines, which are now responsible for shooting down our own and American pilots over Korea today? That is the record of the Socialist Government.
I presume that the Leader of the Opposition is about to move an Amendment, which, I believe, seeks to say that, while agreeing with the re-armament programme, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have no confidence in Her Majesty's Government to carry it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those "Hear, hears" ought to be reversed, because nobody can have any confidence in hon. Gentlemen opposite, when one


sees their condition today, with a split in their own party, and the haphazard way in which they have managed our defences in the past six years. It is absolutely certain that the party opposite would never get back into power while the nation was in danger if the public only knew of and could have seen what we have seen today in the couse of this debate.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. James Carmichael: Most of those who have spoken today have been military experts of one kind or another, except for the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), who took us for a tour round the world. I cannot claim to have any expert military knowledge, and I have never had the good fortune or the opportunity to travel as my hon. Friend has done, but I am glad to have this opportunity of intervening briefly in this debate.
It is already quite clear from the speeches we have heard, and from fairly good authority, that the possibility of war is not now so imminent as it was 12 or 18 months ago. It may be only a matter of opinion, but people say they have no fear of war in the immediate future. We have evidence from the Government themselves, as already pointed out, of the running down of stocks. That is clearly evident; otherwise the Government would be engaged in a very dangerous practice in running down stocks if war were imminent. I think that everyone in the House agrees that the danger is not so serious at the moment as it was 12 or 18 months ago.
I enter into this debate because I am extremely uneasy about the economic position of this country. It is not much use building a powerful military force if in the process we destroy our economy. To that argument we have had some weight added today from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), before he went off at a tangent for no reason that I could understand, admitted that in the building up of our economy and our Armed Forces we must take careful stock of our export trade.
At the moment, everyone recognises that our export trade is in a very precarious position, and I go the length of stating now that it is quite impossible to retain the present arms programme and

at the same time make any headway in the export markets. If we cannot make headway in the export markets, obviously there will be a very serious difficulty in this country both in industry and in the social services. I am fortified in my argument because even the general who has command of the forces—General Eisenhower—says that we must not really depend on military power for strength; real strength depends on physical stability, financial security and a powerful moral force within the country.
When I look at the facts today, I see the Government attempting to budget for an arms programme which almost every hon. Member who has spoken has admitted, in one way or another, cannot be carried out. Surely that is a foolish way to try to balance the economy of the country—attempting to budget for an arms programme which we cannot carry out. In fact, in every branch of our civilian life today, things are being held up. Government Departments and local authorities cannot move today because of the restrictions placed upon them as a result of the priority of the arms programme. Therefore, I say that in the ultimate we shall fail even to build our arms programme if we do not save our economy.
One of the ironical things about the situation we are in is that we emerged from a war in 1945 with Germany and Japan completely crushed as military Powers, and today we are rapidly losing our place in the markets of the world at the very hour when Japan and Germany are capturing them. Both those countries have increased their industrial strength, and to some extent they are being aided by the U.S.A. in the development of their capital resources. We are not today facing ordinary competition in our export trade. If we allow Germany and Japan and other countries to occupy the export markets while we are trying to build up arms, there will be very great danger of our being unable to gain even a reasonable place in the export markets.
That brings me to the question of the social factors involved. It is clear that if we cannot export we shall die as a nation. There is evidence of that already in the country. There is not an hon. Member who does not by every post receive complaints from organisations of the aged, the infirm or the sick about the


rising cost of living. It is apparent that the cost of living will continue high, because our productive power is actually slipping back. We have heavy unemployment in many parts of the country. One of the most important factors in the export drive is our heavy industries, and yet it is there that we are finding unemployment.
There is a close relationship between the unemployed and those who are dependent upon the social services. There is social discontent. From 1945 until 1950 we had full employment and a fairly progressive social service in all its branches. The progress of a people can be kept back if we prevent them from getting advances at certain stages, but, having granted permanent employment and having expanded the social services, to encroach upon those things now is to cause very serious social discontent.
There is already grave disquiet in the industrial field about unemployment. Many prominent trade union leaders have appealed to the rank and file not to exercise industrial power in order to gain political advantages or to prevent the political machinery of the country from working in an ordinary democratic way. I am in complete agreement with that appeal to the workers and I wholeheartedly support the idea that the political structure of the country should be developed in the most democratic way, but all the pleading in the world will not necessarily prevent people in the industrial world from becoming uneasy about industrial and social matters. That ought to be borne in mind by hon. Members.
In the past we were told that the two dangers facing us were the "hot" war—active military operations—and the "cold" war. I believe that we are steadily approaching the period when the "cold" war will be the dominating force in our economic and political life. I plead with my hon. Friends to recognise that the programme laid down by the Government cannot be achieved and that our biggest task is to build up our industrial life by expanding our exports.
I cannot understand the attitude of mind that we should accept the policy of the Government but that we do not believe that the Government are competent to carry it out. One of the most troublesome things in my life in watching the

Tory Party has been their great success in carrying out armament programmes and wars. That is one job at which they are past masters.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: The Labour Party helped during the last war, and very well they did it.

Mr. Carmichael: I am dealing with the history of war, and I am merely making the point that if a programme is laid down there is nobody more competent to carry out a war campaign than the people on the Government benches.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Warmongering.

Mr. Osborne: What about 1939.

Mr. Carmichael: As a matter of fact. the Prime Minister has a record in this matter that cannot be beaten by anybody in this House. Therefore, I say that my own party is wrong in making the kind of challenge they are tonight. We are entitled to say that by the process of arms production the Government are going to disrupt the internal economy of the country, which will give rise to social discontent and hardship. They have already started with the schools and the social services. The Health Service may very well come later on.
A 5 per cent. cut is proposed in education. As yet the school-leaving age has not been reduced. But everyone knows that in the working-class areas the schools are overcrowded with pupils, and the result will be that before very long the Government will have to take steps to reduce the school-leaving age, because they are holding up the erection of schools. When that happens we shall be moving towards one million unemployed, with thousands of youngsters thrown on to the employment market and adding to the number of people walking the streets.
My time does not permit me to go further and so I must make my final point. The hon. Member for Stratford replied to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). He said that my hon. Friend argued that the Government should do nothing to complete the arms programme, but should leave it entirely to the United States. My hon. Friend at no time made any remark of that kind. The most amazing part of the hon.


Gentleman's speech was when he went on to describe my hon. Friend's remarks as one of the finest and best speeches he had ever delivered in this House.

Mr. Profumo: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to misinterpret what I said. What I said was that the bon. Member's speech was one of the best performances he had ever given in this House. I was merely speaking from an oratorical point of view.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member has had second thoughts over it.

Mr. Profumo: No.

Mr. Carmichael: The speech of my bon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East—

Sir T. Moore: —which the hon. Member is repeating.

Mr. Carmichael: I am honest enough to say that I never at any time in my remarks approached the brilliancy of my hon. Friend.

Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member is repeating it, but not so well.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. and gallant Member would be better in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Carmichael: I have debated this matter with the hon. and gallant Member already and I have given him a good thrashing. Let him remember that.
I promised to finish at nine o'clock and I do not want to break that promise This is an opportunity when the Government themselves should take stock of the entire financial and economic resources of the country, and allocate the resources to the arms programme on the basis of a well-founded economy. Then I am satisfied that they can gear up industry for our export trade, which will have the result of reducing the dollar gap, and in consequence of that will enable the people of this country to enjoy the social conditions which they have experienced in the last five years. If the Government prevent the people from continuing to enjoy those benefits, and start taking them away, then I am satisfied that they will enable the Communist Party to win a power in this land to which they are not entitled.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am glad, first of all, to correct the history of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). He seemed to think that the Conservative Party were particularly efficient when they are dealing with military matters. I am old enough to remember all the scandals over the Boer War. That was a complete exhibition of incompetence. The Prime Minister will agree with me that the most efficient War Minister we ever had was a Liberal, Lord Haldane. I can remember the strictures passed by the present Prime Minister on the Conservative Party's handling of defence matters before the Second World War. That is merely a matter of history.
I have listened to and taken part in a great many defence debates. My view is that a defence debate should be a serious consideration of very grave matters. We have had some very serious contributions today. There was a very impressive speech by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). There was an interesting maiden speech from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) and a very well-informed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). There have been a number of interesting speeches; but I have never known a defence debate that started off with the kind of knockabout stuff that the Prime Minister gave us. That speech alone, in its complete levity on this subject, is justification for the Amendment.
We had a whole series of cheap jeers of one kind and another. I was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did it when he was in Opposition, but I did expect something better when he was making his swan song as Minister of Defence, and as Prime Minister of this country. He seemed to be mainly concerned to cast jeers at this party for their record on arms. He seemed mainly to try to appeal for the laughter of the less intelligent of his followers.
In 1951 he made a number of very cheap points and I would apply to him the words applied to him then by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He said:
… we do beg that we shall not have all these jeers about the re-armament that we are putting under way. We shall carry it out; we shall fulfil our obligations to our friends


and Allies, and at the same time we shall try to prevent such an exacerbation of the world atmosphere as makes it impossible for nations to come together in peace and harmony and give mankind another breathing space."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 739–40.]
I thought that was extremely well said and I think those words are applicable to the situation today, because we are still in a very serious situation. I have been surprised at the tendency in many parts of the House to suggest that somehow or other there has been a great lightening in the atmosphere. I have not found it so. It is quite true that the most serious menace has been in Asia, but I cannot think that today there is a feeling of security in Europe.
I do not think that the need for building up effective defence forces for the protection of freedom and democracy is any less than it was last year. I am quite sure that if the situation has eased it has been due to a realisation that the nations of the West are not prepared to give way to aggression.
If, however, at this juncture we say, "Well, it is all nice now, and we can slack off," I do not think we shall reach that position of strength in which there is a reasonable hope that we can get on terms with Russia and arrive at a more peaceful situation in the world. Therefore I say, let us look at this position from actual events in the world. Aggression is still going on in the Far East. There is still need to build up our forces and therefore there is need for defence forces. I think that that is admitted on all sides.
We put forward a programme which was accepted by the House. It was expressed in terms of money. It meant that there was a certain plan for building up our armaments. We said at the time quite clearly that the time it would take to realise this would depend on certain external factors, such as the availability of raw materials, the availability of machine tools and the position of our overseas payments. Events have happened which inevitably mean that we cannot carry out that full programme.
When I spoke on this last year as Prime Minister, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) spoke, we both emphasised that point. Therefore, I am not at all

surprised that the Defence Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman are less than that programme and I am accepting the need for that. However, I am quite sure that were our positions reversed the right hon. Gentleman would have gone for me baldheaded on the ground that we were running away from our commitments, because that has been his attitude all through.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, I always supported the Labour Government in its armaments," but what kind of support was it? It was the kind of support that went around crabbing everything we did, always misrepresenting everything that was done. When I look at his speech in 1951 I can see many instances of it and I can see many instances of where the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong.
A great part of that debate, for instance, was taken up by a denunciation of our scheme for the calling up of the Z Reserve men. The Prime Minister was very eloquent on that, and so were all the brigadiers, but now they have met themselves coming back. Indeed, the Secretary of State for War spoke very handsomely on that matter. It is not only words, but deeds, which matter, because they are going to carry out that same plan this year.
The right hon. Gentleman always went about saying, "You have done nothing about the atom bomb." He could have informed himself fully on that had he liked, but it is much easier not to know and just to talk. Then, when it turns out that we are to have the testing of an atom bomb, the right hon. Gentleman says, "Why did you not tell us?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not tell us?"] Because the right hon. Gentleman never asked.

The Prime Minister: What I asked was, "Why did you not convey this decision to Parliament?"

Mr. Attlee: Because I followed the course that had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Prime Minister. It was the advice of everyone that we do not tell all these details.

The Prime Minister: That was in wartime.

Mr. Attlee: Oh, no. It was carried on after that. I may say that for a considerable time after we had come into power


the Atomic Committee was presided over by Lord Waverley—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a very high opinion of him.
We also take our advice in these matters from our technical experts, and there is close consideration with our Allies on all the matters of the revealing at particular times of this information. The right hon. Gentleman could perfectly well have found out, but, as in so many instances, he goes about talking merely because he cannot bear that anything shall be done successfully unless he is the leader.
We had to consider when we were in office, and we have to consider now, a very careful balance between what we can afford for defence and what is necessary for the economic position of the country. The late Government never laid it down as something sacrosanct that a certain sum should be spent in a certain time. But it was quite obvious that one has to have a programme and to work out that programme. We may slow down that programme, but we cannot suddenly say, in the midst of it, that we are now going to cut off £250 million and that we will get it all from America.
I am all for the greatest co-operation between ourselves and the other members of the Atlantic Treaty. I quite agree that as far as we can we should get part of the work done here and part there, and help each other, but it is not very easy. It is much more difficult, particularly in dealing with our friends in the United States, because their Government has to deal with all kinds of Senate committees and various things; we may make an agreement and we may find that it is not so easy to get it carried out. But I am entirely in agreement that we should work together in these matters.
On the one hand, however, I do not believe it is right that this country should be absolutely dependent on the United States of America. That is one very good reason for going ahead with our own work on the atomic bomb. But, also, I do not believe in the kind of suggestion that if we get anything from the United States we are losing our freedom of action. In this matter of the defence of democracy we are partners. It is quite true that they have more resources than we have, but there are many assets also

on our side. The others need us as much as we need them.
Therefore, on that general position, I say that we have to continue to re-arm, but we have also to beware all the time, because it would be folly to have a prosperous economy which was defenceless and it would be equal folly to try to defend an economy in ruins. It is quite clear we have to strike a balance on this.
I want to deal with one or two other points. I would like for a moment to deal with the organisation of defence. The right hon. Gentleman has as Minister of Defence a very distinguished soldier, Lord Alexander. I have the greatest admiration for him as a soldier and as a man, and he is a man of a very broad outlook. In anything I may say there is not a criticism in the least of Lord Alexander, but I think it is a mistake to have a high military authority as Minister of Defence.
First of all, it is quite contrary to the tradition in this country in which Service Ministers are civilians. There have been exceptions, there was the exception when Lord Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War—I do not think he was very successful—but as a rule the civilian in our political system is the man with the deciding voice.
If we bring in the military experts to that position I think we put both the military advisers of the Government and the civilian Ministers in a very difficult position. First, we have our military advisers, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the First Sea Lord and the rest and they are sitting under a Minister of great technical knowledge. I do not think that that is fair to them. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well how careful one has to be in the relationship between the Government and their technical experts.
The right hon. Gentleman was fortunate in having as his representative with the Chiefs-of-Staff during the war a man of extraordinary tact and ability in Lord Ismay. Even that was not too easy. Very few people other than Lord Ismay could have held that position successfully. Therefore, I say that on that side it is wrong.
Secondly, it is a position in which you have a man with no political experience whatever but he is presiding over and co-ordinating the civilian Ministers. It


would be difficult, I think, if the civilian Ministers were people of very considerable political standing. Without wishing to say anything hard at all, the present civilian Ministers are not of very exceptional standing. There is one, the Secretary of State for War who was a very able soldier, but again, his experience has been mainly military and he has not been very long in the House. There is the First Lord of the Admiralty, whom we have known for years, and the Secretary of State for Air, who was in this House about six months and, as far as I know, has no particular experience. The whole weight of opinion there is on the military side and nothing on the civilian side.
The sole representation of the civilian is the Prime Minister. I do not think that that is very good. The Prime Minister, as everyone knows, has great gifts, great gifts of imagination. He is capable of making most brilliant decisions and he is capable of dropping very big bricks. He needs to be surrounded by people who are able to stand up to him and I do not like the situation we are now reaching in which the Prime Minister is surrounded by people who are not elected persons. They sit in another place; most of them have not even been in the House of Commons at all. The tendency is that we are getting a kind of one man rule, the Prime Minister in a circle—a family circle all round him. I think that that is undesirable.
I do not think that the development we have seen recently in the Ministry of Defence is going the right way. I do not quite know why We have a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. I am saying nothing against the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). I had the pleasure of serving with his father on the Army Council about 27 years ago, and I have very pleasant memories of him. But there is little that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence can do.
It is said that he can answer Questions in the House, but the answers to most defence questions need the authority of a Member of the Cabinet or at least of a fairly senior Minister. The hon. Member, obviously, cannot preside over meetings of Secretaries of State of other Service Ministers; he is too junior.

I do not know what he can do. He is an extra wheel on the cart unless there is to be a very big development of administration in the Ministry of Defence; and when we discussed the creation of a Ministry of Defence it was the general view of the House that it was undesirable to create another big Department. There again the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's Government created a big Department.

Mr. Attlee: No, it is not a big Department.

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes.

Mr. Attlee: Not at all.

The Prime Minister: When I left the office of Minister of Defence the Ministry was a handling machine costing about £50,000 a year. When I came back I found this enormous Department, which with its infra-structure, and so on, was costing £17 million a year.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman realises that since then there has been the whole of this development of Atlantic defence, and also what everybody had pressed on us, namely, that there should be a considerable handling of services common to the three Services by one organisation. Therefore, there has inevitably been some increase, but it is not a Department with a great deal of administration requiring a Parliamentary Secretary.
The broad matter that faces us today is that we on this side of the House are all agreed that we must build up our defences. I frankly say that there are differences as to the extent of that. We are supporting the provision that the Government propose to make, but we are entirely distrustful of the ability of this Government to carry it out. At the beginning of my speech I mentioned some historical reasons because of which, somehow or other, a Conservative Government always makes a mess of defence.
If I undertook a little research it would show, in speeches in the long career of the Prime Minister, what he said about Mr. Brodrick when the Conservatives were in office. Then, of course, the right


hon. Gentleman was in the Liberal Party and he was in power. Then, after 1931 when he was in opposition, there was what he said about the then Sir Thomas Inskip and all the rest of it. That was one of the occasions when he was quite right.
The Conservative Party has always fumbled defence matters. The right hon. Gentleman rather prided himself. He said he could look back on what he considered to be the blunders of six years of Labour Government. We have to have a long memory for that, but when we look at the record of this Government. a few weeks have shown us their blunders. We have seen day after day Ministers coming to the Table and blessing that which they cursed and saying that they are to do that which they always said was wrong. In these defence matters particularly the right hon. Gentleman attacked us on the grounds of our mistakes. Nothing that we did was right. We now come back and find that he has had to adopt the very things we did.

The Prime Minister: Many things.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, we never heard of those things. We only heard of the things the right hon. Gentleman groused about, and then he was wrong. The fact is the right hon. Gentleman was most factious in Opposition. He made a speech today which was calculated to do as much as possible to cause dis- unity on defence in this country, a speech that will depress our Allies, a speech that fell far below his own standards and was merely an appeal to the groundlings.

9.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): Today's debate, though it would have been easy to forget it, is on a Motion of censure upon the Government and I have been waiting to hear some heavy criticisms levelled against us. So far, I have not heard them. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the Leader of the Opposition both made remarks about the Prime Minister which I should describe as rather feline, but nothing of much substance has arisen.
Therefore, I set out upon my maiden voyage on rather surprisingly calm waters. In doing so I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member

for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) on two very thoughtful and technical maiden speeches which will certainly be studied by their colleagues in the Government.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the appointment of my noble Friend the Minister of Defence. He will not expect me to answer that. All I will say is that I think the country recognises that my noble Friend is the right man for the job. The right hon. Member for Easington could not see much use in me and said that he would throw as many things at me as he could. I shall do my best to sustain his darts with equanimity and with all the grace I can summon.
There have been many disputes and factious fights on re-armament. The right hon. Member for Easington said that the Prime Minister was trying to cause a cleavage in the Labour Party. That, surely, would be a work of superrerogation. We are not really trying to do that. When we approach this subject we must be clear about our object. I was very glad that the Leader of the Opposition said a few words in the course of his speech about the reasons we are doing these things and pointed out that the dangers are not yet passed. He put our object extraordinarily well when he made the original statement on 29th January, 1945, on the £4,700 million programme. The Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, said:
The Government do not believe that war is inevitable. Their purpose is to prevent war. But they believe that peace cannot be ensured unless the defences of the free world are made sufficiently strong to deter aggression. It is for this purpose, and for this purpose only, that the Government now think it right to take still further measures to increase the state of preparedness of the Armed Forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 579.]
When he said that I think we all agreed with it, and I think the great majority of the House is similarly agreed today.
Today there is still in Europe and in the world a total lack of balance of power in conventional weapons, and this unbalance of power is only redressed by the terrible threat of the atom bomb. Therefore, at a time when the scales are weighted in favour of the blitzkreig, it is essential that the unbalance must be set right. That is what we are now trying to do.
The right hon. Member for Easington criticised the Prime Minister for not talking about N.A.T.O.—for not realising that he had any Allies—and went on to make what I thought were not very charitable remarks about some of our Allies, particularly our oldest Ally, Portugal, who I am informed, are playing extremely well at the moment. [Interruption.] They are doing very well.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has said that Portugal is doing very well. Will he say what is Portugal's actual contribution, in battalions, units, formations or anything else?

Mr. Birch: They have made promises. [Laughter.] They have made promises that at the end of the year they would have a very reasonable contribution to make to our defences. I think it is a little inelegant to laugh. When we talk about promises, we are greeted with roars of laughter, but I am not unhopeful. I believe that these promises will be carried out.
The right hon. Gentleman then criticised the communiqué from Lisbon for talking about 50 divisions at appropriate states of combat readiness. What that communiqué did not say was that there would be 50 fully-mobilised divisions in the line. Everybody knows we shall not have that; but what was said was that if the promises were kept we should have 50 divisions available at a reasonable date after mobilisation. I see no reason to suppose that this estimate is going to go wrong.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope it is so. All I said was—and this was the purpose of my argument—that it would not be realised unless a great volume of equipment were provided by the United States.

Mr. Birch: There are many conditions, as we all know, for getting forces into the field, and that is one of the conditions which we hope will be fulfilled. Equipment is coming from the United States, particularly for the armies in Europe. The truth is that the conference at Lisbon was not a failure, that the strength of N.A.T.O. is being built up but that the strength of N.A.T.O. is not being built up quite as quickly as we had hoped it would be.
I think that very many hon. Members who have spoken have been worried about the economic effect of re-armament—and rightly—particularly the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). He made one of his most energetic speeches on this subject. We are engaged as we know, upon this £4,700 million programme and I should like to quote again the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he introduced this programme on 29th January last year. He said:
… the measures we must now take will be far-reaching and will affect every citizen and almost every industry. There will have to be financial measures to check civilian demand. On these I will say nothing; the Chancellor of the Exchequer has them under consideration and will inform the House when he opens his Budget. But, in addition, there will have to be a series of more direct economic measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 585.]
At the time the right hon. Gentleman said that our economy was already overloaded and therefore, if that statement meant anything, it meant that some such measures as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now taking ought then to have been taken. After all, armaments have to be paid for; they do not come out of the air, and if we have an overloaded economy we have to make room for them somewhere.
If the proper measures had been taken then I think that the measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now taking would not have needed to be so severe. The idea that those measures would have to be taken was reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman later, when he said:
… though the burden will be heavy, it is not more than we can bear. If we carry it in the way I have suggested, we shall not destroy the recovery we have made during the last few years; nor shall we imperil the future strength of our economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 586.]
As the House knows, very few measures of the sort which the Prime Minister had in mind were taken or, if they were taken, they were wholely ineffective. Consequently, a crisis became inevitable.
In the late spring of last year we started to run into a foreign exchange crisis, and the Government decided to postpone the crisis until after the Election. They had some reasons for doing so. That was the decision. Nothing whatever was done about it, and what


was the result? The result was inflation, rising prices, lagging production, a balance of payments crisis and an accentuation of the raw material crisis. All these things were an inevitable result of not taking the economic measures which were a necessary corollary of the armaments programme.
The right hon. Member for Easington opened the debate. My right hon. Friend praised him very much last time but did not praise him so much this time. The right hon. Member for Easington feels that he is a mixture between the Duke of Wellington and Carnot. He said, "I am a great man, and I gave a tremendous lot of orders." Anyone can order things; anyone can go to a shop and order things, but the problem is to pay for them and to get them. Giving orders is not so difficult as the next stage. The fact that no room was made for the armaments programme is the main reason for the delay which has taken place, and I think it well justified our Motion against the Labour Party on their re-armament programme when we accused them of vacillation and delay, because that was exactly what occurred.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has not spoken today; I believe that it is his self-denial week. He claims that he is a prophet and that he foresaw both the setback in the arms programme and the financial crisis. His hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, is more modest; he says he did not foresee the intensity of the financial crisis. I believe that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is right to this extent—that he rather mistrusted his colleagues' powers of planning.
We know that the right hon. Member does not believe in arithmetic, but he thought that the thing was not adding up and he believed his friends had not thought deeply enough about it. If we look at the way the re-armament programme was introduced, with three separate bites at the cherry, all rather close together, we can see that it was inevitable that many of the implications were not very deeply thought out.
Nevertheless, I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on the main issue. The right hon. Gentleman is quite clever—very clever indeed;

he is clever enough to know, of course, that if this re-armament programme were to be carried out there would have to be a tough economic policy and a tough Budget, and that there would have to be cuts; and he was determined to see that no such tough economic policy was carried out.
His right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench equally knew that a tough policy was necessary if this re-armament programme were to be carried out, but they lacked perhaps the power, perhaps the courage—I do not know; but at any rate, they lacked what it took to carry out that policy and, therefore, in the event, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was proved to be perfectly right. But I suggest that he won his race because he doped his rival's horse. I am told that that is a quite powerful way of backing the winner.
The right hon. Gentleman saw them carry out that policy, and he saw it was a failure, and it is now, of course, going very nicely his way. I must say I have some sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition. He always has a tough time. Not only in Opposition does he have a tough time, but he had a tough time when he was in the Government. He is like a ball thrown backward and forward between the various factions in his party—
The Ball no Question makes of Ayes and Noes But Right or Left as strikes the Player goes.
Inflation and the things that flow from it, such as the crisis in our balance of payments, have been the main factors in the setback to our arms programme, and it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can to put these things right, and he is now engaged upon doing so. The Services also have duties in this matter. The Estimates debates are coming on in the next two or three weeks, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be talking on these matters. In the Services the greatest possible efforts are being made to economise, to cut down on things which are inessential, to cut down on unnecessary establishments and on unnecessary staffs.
I believe that we shall be able to do a very great deal in that respect, and I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a good deal to say about all this in the Estimates debates. I was glad


that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), who made a very interesting speech, raised the question of establishments and waste in the Services. He made some very sensible suggestions about the matter.
There have not in this debate been many detailed points raised concerning either the Army or the Navy and, therefore, as the Estimates are just coming on, I shall not talk about them tonight, although I should like to mention the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder). Tomorrow, the First Lord and his colleagues will be dealing with the points my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind.

Mr. Wyatt: Has the hon. Gentleman charge of them?

Mr. Birch: No, but they have told me so.
I should like to say something about the air. The Prime Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), all said something about the matter. My right hon. Friend talked a little about what the Leader of the Opposition said about the air the last time we had a defence debate. I should like to quote what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said:
No one knows better than he does"—
that is, my right hon. Friend—
how heartbreaking are the delays in the production of aircraft.… We were attacked on the grounds that we did not make greater provision of aircraft, but if we had produced more they would have been obsolete and obsolescent aircraft.… The point there is that in this competition in the air one State is always tending to get ahead of the other. There always comes a point, as indeed there is at the moment with regard to the Soviet M.I.G., when someone has an advantage. In a short time we shall be having the advantage, but it would have been short-sighted if we had tried to step-up all our squadrons to full strength by producing obsolete or obsolescent aircraft."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2610–1.]
I do not quarrel with the actual words of that statement, but I think the total effect of it is very misleading.
After the war, the policy for the Air Force was that it should be of the size

appropriate to a period of stable peace. In fact, it proved impossible to keep the Air Force even at that size because, owing to manpower shortage, we did not get enough skilled men to keep the aircraft flying, and the front line was lower even than that planned as appropriate to a period of stable peace. There was not only the assumption of stable peace, but there was, in addition, the belief that replacements of existing types using to the full the new developments in aerodynamics and jet propulsion were still quite a long way ahead—seven or eight years ahead. That was the general opinion at that time. I am not criticising it, but am merely giving the history of what took place.
Therefore, the decision was made to proceed mainly upon the war-time conceptions. The Meteor, the Vampire and the Lincoln, the main fighters and the main bomber we have got, are essentially last-war conceptions. They are really last-war types. Therefore, we decided to go on with those last-war types until something radically new could come in. The point I want to make here is that the result of that policy, whether right or wrong, was that there was a run-down in the aircraft industry even greater than the run-down in the Air Force. The right hon. Member for Easington criticised the aircraft industry; he thought this industry was another victim ready bound for the altar of nationalisation. The House must recollect that manpower in the aircraft industry did not start increasing until June, 1950, and the main difficulty of getting aircraft production going is simply that the manpower ran right down after the war; it is naturally very difficult indeed to get it back again. It takes time, and this is the trouble that we are suffering from now.
After the Berlin crisis certain things happened. We ordered some immediate fighters. We ordered the Venom and the Meteor light fighter, and also, I think very creditably, we obtained some Washington bombers—the American B.29—and the Canberra was ordered off the drawing-board.

Mr. Shinwell: They are not modern fighters.

Mr. Birch: The other modern fighters were ordered after Korea.

Mr. Shinwell: Oh, no.

Mr. Birch: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: No. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Swift and Super-marine, and quite a number of other types, were ordered before the Korean affair.

Mr. Birch: With respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
We then went on to the Swift, as the right hon. Gentleman says, to the Hawker Fighter, or F.3 as it is sometimes called, and to the Valiant. All these again were ordered off the drawing-board. Now production is not at all a quick job. It is agonisingly difficult to know when to go into production. It is an agonisingly difficult task, and we got it right in the last war. In the last war, in 1939 and 1940, we had fighters of the quality and in the numbers which, though by the narrowest of margins, saved the world. If the war had come earlier, that would not have happened. We now have five aircraft—the Canberra, the Valiant, the Hawker Fighter, the Swift, and the all-weather fighter which is now coming on—which are better than any designed for similar purposes belonging to other countries which are flying today. We shall, of course, receive the F.86, but except for the Canberra and the F.86 all these are still only prototypes.
Meanwhile, of course, as is often said, the Russians have got the M.I.G.15 in very considerable quantities. I must make it clear that we cannot in the near future have in the Service aircraft in sufficient quantity to deal with the M.I.G.15. Nor—and the House should note this—could we have had, even if there had been no set-back in production. The set-back in production is painful, but if it had not come it would not have affected the present position in any way. Therefore, it is fair to say that, as far as the air goes, we are enduring at this moment a very considerable risk, and it would be a very great risk indeed were we not blessed with Allies. I think that the state of our air defences alone would be a reason for re-arming. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, seems to think that we can only re-arm if it does not cost us anything.

Mr. Crossman: I said exactly the opposite.

Mr. Birch: At certain times, when one has fallen behind, one has to do something about it. Now we are up

against some very formidable difficulties; we do not underestimate them at all, and we are doing our best to solve them. I think it is possible to be too gloomy, and it is possible to take too low a view of the Chiefs of Staff and various other people. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, talked about the Chiefs of Staff, how they must be put in their place, and so on. It is possible, I think, to be a little too pessimistic. As I see the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale there, perhaps I could just remind him of something he said on a famous occasion about our commanders. He said on 2nd July, 1942:
We have in this country five or six generals, members of other nations, Czechs, Poles and French, all of them trained in the use of these German weapons and this German technique. I know it is hurtful to our pride, but would it not be possible to put some of those men temporarily in charge in the field, until we can produce trained men of our own.… They know how to fight this war; our people do not.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1942; Vol. 381, c. 537.]
Less than four months after that the Battle of El Alamein was won.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Subsequently the Government of the day took my advice and appointed a foreigner in charge of all the Forces.

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is not a Czech, a Pole or a Frenchman. I should like the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Be British."]—to note that the Battle of El Alamein was fought by a British general and fought under the supreme direction of my noble Friend.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman will note, however, that it was not Montgomery who was put in charge of the Allied Forces but Eisenhower.

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman remembers that commands were divided; in some theatres we had a supreme British commander and in some a supreme American commander. That is what we have now. What the right hon. Gentleman will note was that he was wholly and shamefully wrong. It may encourage the Opposition Front Bench to remember that even Homer nods. I promised to sit down before ten o'clock in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the chance of moving his Motion


of censure on the Government, for which we have still not heard the reasons, but he is still going to move it. I understand, and, therefore. I am coming to the end of what I have to say.
The Chinese have a curse which is to wish that your enemy should live in interesting times. We certainly live in interesting times in this country, and all of us can hardly remember a time when there was not some danger or crisis present upon us. We cannot know what the future holds out for us, but we can do our duty by our Allies and we can have faith in our cause.
Doing our duty will not be either a light or an easy task. It will require, and is requiring the utmost strain and effort. It means giving up many desirable things during this temporary period, and it would be wholly wrong to deny that or blink it in any way. It also demands a certain measure of unity in this country if this plan of re-armament is to be carried out.
Therefore, I should like to end on a note of unity by paying one or two compliments to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to congratulate him on the Machiavellian skill with which he has drafted his Amendment because, as the House will notice, everybody who votes in either Lobby is thereby committed to the principle of re-armament, and thereby committed to commending this White Paper; and, therefore, those who vote

will not be able afterwards to criticise re-armament in general but only able to criticise my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for the way in which they carry it out. That is a piece of Machiavellian art which happens on this occasion to have been done, on the whole, in the interests of the country.

If I may take my good will rather further and wish him something not generally done by a Government, I very much wish that when the Prime Minister leads or follows his party into the Lobby he will be followed by a very great many of them. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should remember that we have had to endure the Leader of the Opposition for six years, and habits stick. What I meant was that I very deeply hope that when he either leads or follows his party into the Lobby, the Leader of the Opposition will be followed by most of them. What we can say is that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister leads his party into the Lobby, he will be followed by all of them. They will go with a good conscience and with a good heart, and they will go from the best of motives.

Mr. John Strachey: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but has no confidence in the capacity of Her Majesty's present advisers to carry it out.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 314.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Albu, A. H.
Callaghan, L. J.
Ewart, R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Champion, A. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Chapman, W. D.
Fienburgh, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Finch, H. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Clunie, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Ayles, W. S.
Cocks, F. S.
Follick, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Balfour, A.
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cook, T. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gibson, C. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Crosland, C. A. R.
Glanville, James


Benson, G.
Daines, P.
Gooch, E. G.


Beswick, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blackburn, F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grey, C. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bowden, H. W.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hamilton, W. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edelman, M.
Hannan, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hardy, E. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hargreaves, A.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hastings, S.




Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.
Sparks, J. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mulley, F. W.
Steele, T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Houghton, Douglas
O'Brien, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hoy, J. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paton, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Peart, T. F.
Tomney, F.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Turner-Samuels, M.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Poole, C. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.
Usborne, H. C.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.
Viant, S. P.


Keenan, W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, H. W.


Kenyon, C.
Prime, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Weitzman, D.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Kinley, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Wells, Williams (Walsall)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.
West, D. G.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Logan, D. G.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


MacColl, J. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wigg, G. E. C.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McLeavy, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Royle, C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mellish, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Messer, F.
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Morley, R.
Slater, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, C.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mort, D. L.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
De la Bère, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Deedes, W. F.


Amery, Julian, (Preston, N.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA


Arbuthnot, John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Donner, P. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bullard, D. G.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Astor, Hon. J. J. (plymouth, Sutton)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Drayson, G. B.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Burden, F. F. A.
Drewe, C.


Baker, P. A. D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Carson, Hon. E.
Duthie, W. S.


Banks, Col. C.
Cary, Sir Robert
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Barber, A. P. L.
Channon, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E


Barlow, Sir John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Erroll, F. J.


Baxter, A. B.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fell, A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fisher, Nigel


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cole, Norman
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Colegate, W. A.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fort, R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Foster, John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Birch, Nigel
Cranborne, Viscount
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Black, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gage, C. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crouch, R. F.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Bossom, A. C.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bowen, E. R.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gammans, L. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Braine, B. R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Glyn, Sir Ralph







Godber, J. B.
Low, A. R. W.
Ropner, Col Sir Leonard


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gower, H. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McAdden, S. J.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Grimond, J.
McCallum, Major D
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, R. Donald


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harden, J. R. E.
McKibbin, A. J.
Shepherd, William


Hare, Hon. J. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclay, Hon. John
Smiles, Lt.-Col- Sir Walter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C


Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Manningham-Bullar, Sir R. E
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Markham, Major S. F.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Heath, Edward
Marlowe, A A. H.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marples, A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythonshawe)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Storey, S.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hollis, M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Studholme, H. G.


Holt, A. F.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Summers, G. S.


Hope, Lord John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Horobin, I. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicholls, Harmar
Teeling, W


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Rt Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hurd, A. R
Nutting, Anthony
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Tilney, John


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Touche, G. C


Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Jennings, R.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Vosper, D. F


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.
Wade, D. W.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C


Kaberry, D.
Peto, Brig C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lambton, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Powell, J. Enoch
Wellwood, W.


Langtord-Holt, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
While, Baker (Canterbury)


Leather, E. H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Legge-Bourke, MaJ. E. A. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Redmayne, M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lindsay, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wills, G.


Linstead, H. N.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Robertson, Sir David
York, C.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)



Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robson-Brown, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rodgers, John (Savenoaks)
Brigadier Mackeson and


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Roper, Sir Harold
Mr. Butcher.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 55.

Division No. 37]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Barlow, Sir John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baxter, A. B.


Alport, C. J. M.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Beach, Maj Hicks


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baker, P. A. D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Maj W. J.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Banks, Col. C.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barber, A. P. L
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)







Bennett, William (Woodside)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Maj. S. F.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Birch, Nigel
Grimond, J.
Marples, A. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, Angus


Bossom, A. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maudling, R.


Bowen, E. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir John


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heath, Edward
Nicholls, Harmar


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Hingchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Holt, A. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Channon, H.
Hope, Lord John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Cole, Norman
Howard Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Colegate, W. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert
Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jennings, R.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Renton, D. L. M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


De la Bère, R.
Kaberry, D.
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robson-Brown, W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton Viscount
Roper, Sir Harold


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Wolt, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Drewe, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott, R. Donald


Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Shepherd, William


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Low, A. R. W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fort, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, R. M.


Foster, John
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCallum, Major D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stevens, G. P.


Gage, C. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (Isle of Wight)
Steward W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MoKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Hon. John
Storey, S.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Studholme, H. G.


Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Summers, G. S.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)







Teeling, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
While, Baker (Canterbury)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wade, D. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wills, G.


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tilney, John
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Wood, Hon. R.


Touche, G. C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
York, C.


Turner, H. F. L.
Watkinson, H. A.



Turton, R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vane, W. M. F.
Wellwood, W.
Brigadier Mackeson




and Mr. Butcher.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Freeman, John (Watford)
Poole, C. C.


Baird, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Snow, J. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (Well Ham, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, S. T.


Cove, W. G.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Timmons, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Delargy, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Yates, V. F


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Driberg, T. E. N.
Manuel, A. C
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Monslow and


Fernyhough, E.
Orbach, M.
Mr. Tudor Watkins.


Foot, M. M.
Padley, W. E.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1952 (Command Paper No. 8475).

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) BILL

As amended, considered.

10.23 p.m.

Clause 3.—(PERIOD IN RESPECT OF WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS MAY BE MADE.)

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out subsections (3) and (4), and to insert:
(3) A period specified for the purposes of this section in the first scheme under this Act for any country may be a period beginning before the passing of this Act, but not before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and shall not exceed one year.
(4) A period specified for the purposes of this section in any subsequent scheme under this Act shall not exceed two years.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we considered at the same time the following Amendment in my name. It is to Clause 4, in page 3, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any extension by a varying scheme of a period specified for the purposes of section three of this Act shall be for not more than two years.

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be quite convenient if the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) agrees.

Mr. Thomas Williams: indicated assent.

Sir T. Dugdale: These two Amendments are to meet criticisms made during the debate in Committee, and I think they will benefit the Bill. The effect of the Amendments, with the Amendment agreed to in Committee that all Statutory Instruments made under the Bill shall require an Affirmative Resolution, is that, subject to an Affirmative Resolution, the first scheme shall be for a period beginning before the passing of the Act but not before 1st July, 1951, and not exceeding one year. In fact, the scheme will be for the period from 1st July, 1951, to 30th June, 1952. After the period of the first scheme, all subsequent schemes will be for periods not exceeding two years, and every scheme and every variation or revocation of a

scheme will, as already stated, be subject to Affirmative Resolution.

Mr. T. Williams: We should like to express our appreciation to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for following what I think is a very good tradition. When I occupied the position which he now does, I was always ready and willing to listen to Members of the Opposition. If they could improve any Bill, I gave them the opportunity. My hon. Friends the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had Amendments down in the Committee stage which I was satisfied would improve the Bill. Fortunately, the Minister agrees with them and has now accepted their Amendments. I am certain that they improve this Measure. Therefore, we express our appreciation of the Minister's acceptance of these Amendments, and we support them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 28, at end, insert:
Provided that any extension by a varying scheme of a period specified for the purposes of section three of this Act shall be for not more than two years.—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Clause 6.—(SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION.)

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after "Act," to insert:
agricultural land" means any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground, or for the purpose of poultry farming, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, including allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, or the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922.
This Amendment introduces in the Bill a definition of agricultural land and is for the purpose of satisfying two doubts which were expressed by Members in various parts of the House during the Committee stage. It makes it clear that the definition in other Acts which refer to agricultural land as land used for the purposes of a trade or business or introduce similar limitations, does not apply.
It also makes it plain that individual allotment holders, for example, are occupiers of agricultural land, and may apply


for contributions in their own right, and, subject to taking delivery of at least the minimum amount of fertiliser to which a scheme will apply, are not bound to apply through their association, co-operative society or similar body. The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the arguments raised in Committee. Again, I think that this Amendment improves the Bill.

Mr. T. Williams: Here again, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has responded to an Amendment moved from this side of the House in Committee. Since this Amendment will include allotment holders and those occupying a very small area of land, we readily agree with the Amendment and express our appreciation to the Minister.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I should like to add a word of thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has treated us in respect of this Amendment and the other Amendments which he moved. He has considered our Amendments—I think they improve the Bill—and he has accepted them.
I should just like to point out that originally this Bill was put on the Order Paper to have the Committee stage taken after 10 o'clock, with the Report stage and Third Reading to follow immediately afterwards. Well, when an Opposition puts down a number of Amendments that is not treating an Opposition with respect, because it is quite impossible for the Government to consider—because they have no time to consider—Opposition Amendments if they take the Report stage immediately after the Committee stage. Indeed, had the concession, for which we were very grateful, not been given, this improvement could not have been made. There is another Bill in the hands of the Board of Trade at the moment, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will say a word to his colleague so that we shall be treated in as reasonable a way as he has treated us.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not intend to delay the House for more than two minutes on this Motion. I did not intervene on the Report stage, but I do so on Third Reading, when I consider it perhaps a little more appropriate. I should like to reinforce the observations my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) managed to make on an Amendment on Report stage. It looks as though these proceedings will conclude in a very few seconds, but there is no doubt that that would not have taken place had the Government pursued their original course of trying to force this Bill through without discussion after 10 o'clock. When I say that, I acquit the Minister; he was very patient and helpful, and I think he set an example to his colleagues.
It is one of the curiosities of Parliamentary procedure that if we have a two hours discussion of an important Amendment in Committee and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, after considering it, decides that he cannot incorporate it in the Bill, there is no opportunity of discussing the matter on Report stage because there is nothing on the Order Paper to discuss. Therefore, on Clause 1, we were faced with the problem that, either we had to put down an Amendment we did not intend to discuss again because it had been discussed, or there was no means, except on Third Reading, of asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how he had come to his conclusion and what attention he had given to the suggestions that had been made to him on the previous occasion.
As, fortunately, it was an Amendment to leave something out of the Bill and not an Amendment to put something in the Bill, I apprehend it is in order to discuss it on Third Reading, because the words are still in the Bill. Therefore, I venture to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the House why the words to which we took exception in Clause 1 are still in the Bill, or why they have not been moved half a line back, as suggested by one hon. Member, or three-quarters of a line back as suggested by somebody else, because I am sure he has considered this matter.
I must say at once in fairness that, although we thought it was a very im-


portant matter, we realise that, although the Ministry of Agriculture is a very important Department, it perhaps is not that Department which is in so close an alliance with the Treasury as to be able to bring about a new proceeding on the part of the Treasury. I and my colleagues have, therefore, taken the view that this exceedingly important matter can be raised more appropriately on some future Bill, and I am happy to say that there appears to be on the Order Paper at this moment a sufficiently wide choice of Bills upon which this can be thoroughly raised and debated.
Having said that, I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. I hope that the Minister will forward the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee and Report stages of this Bill to one or two of the more recalcitrant Ministries so that they can be shown that a little courtesy and a little consideration, with a desire to further the business of the House, while at the same time considering the rights of the Opposition to express itself on these matters, and the necessity for a certain amount of patience, diligence and discussion on important points, on the whole makes for speed.
I think that we have shown by our attitude in this matter that we have no desire whatever to delay legislation. What we do desire is to have the opportunity of putting points in such a fashion that they can be properly and decently discussed, without the haste that the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary appeared to think was necessary in the first instance.
In conclusion, may I venture to hope that, notwithstanding our enforced holiday at Christmas, and the interruption to Business since, we shall not normally be presented with these important stages of discussion on important Bills after 10 o'clock but will revert to the ordinary procedure of discussing them in normal school hours and not during a period of over-time. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) gave notice to-day of his desire in other institutions to introduce double-shift working, which gives us some ground at least for thinking that in an emergency we should adopt that procedure here, but I am sure that we prefer at the moment to discuss these matters in the spirit in which we have had the discussion on this occasion.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I do not wish in any way to delay the Bill reaching the Statute Book, but I think it right and proper that one who has cultivated an allotment for the last 16 years—and still does cultivate it, knowing the urgent need for food in this country—should express the gratitude of the many thousands of allotment holders in the country for the Bill and particularly for the Clause which assists in providing fertilisers, which have been in very short supply at high prices.

Mr. J. Grimond: The Minister and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have gone to considerable trouble to meet the requirements of crofters and other small users of fertilisers, and for that I am grateful, as I know they will be. The Minister has promised us that the minimum quantity will be kept as low as possible and, secondly, that associations which acquire fertilisers in bulk for re-distribution among their members may receive the benefits of the subsidy for those on whose behalf they buy the fertilisers.
I hope the Minister will make the Orders as wide as possible when he introduces them, so that associations of different kinds can take advantage of the Clause and so that, even in the crofting townships where there is no association, the grazing constable or perhaps a leading member of the township may be enabled to obtain the fertilisers on behalf of the other crofters.

10.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Perhaps I may reply briefly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I know that he does not expect an exhaustive answer tonight and that he realises that there will be opportunities to raise the matter on future occasions. I can assure him that we have looked at this closely in the context of the Bill. The House has recognised, I am sure, that a Bill of this kind is not an occasion for raising a major principle, but within the limits of the Bill the words, in the place in which they stand, give the Minister the maximum power to make his own schemes and leave him with what has hitherto been only the normal obligation to consult the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke about minimum quantities. We have had further opportunities to look at that aspect, although there are a number of considerations involved. We can give an assurance that the minimum will be less than 10 cwt.—a figure mentioned on Second Reading—and I believe we can also give an assurance that it will be not more than five cwt. We are trying to make it as low as possible in order to meet the convenience of such people as allotment holders and crofters.
I do not propose to deal at great length with the point previously raised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I imagine he is satisfied that the supply position is satisfactory.

Mr. George Brown: No.

Mr. Nugent: Perhaps I may give one or two figures which will help to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that the supply position looks as if it will be satisfactory. The main reason for putting the whole subsidy on phosphates was because the price of them rose very steeply last July by comparison with that of other inorganic fertilisers like potash. In fact, the price rise was something like 60 to 80 per cent. on the phosphates, and only 30 to 35 per cent. on other fertilisers. It was for that specific reason that my right hon. and gallant Friend thought there should be a subsidy on phosphates alone.
The deliveries to farmers and merchants during the six months from last July to 31st December give some indication of what the effect of that price rise has been because, during that period, farmers did not know that this subsidy was going to be put on; it was not until December that they heard about it. It is significant that during those six months the offtake of phosphatic fertilisers did fall by about 35 per cent., whereas the offtake of nitrogen and potash showed only about a 10 per cent. fall. It was obvious that the steep rise in phosphate prices was acting as an extreme disincentive.
For the period to 30th June, which we have still to go, the Department have studied the demand position, and the best estimate it has made is that there is sufficient supply to meet the demand, even

with the stimulus which the subsidy will give. I hope that the House is satisfied that, for the next 12 months, the situation will be satisfactory.
There is one other point to which I direct the attention of hon. Members, and that is that in the course of the Report stage the Bill has been amended so that it has now a slightly different aspect—an important aspect, as we all agree. Whereas in the original Bill the life of it was defined as from 1951 to 1956, with powers to extend, the definition of the life of the Bill for those years has now disappeared. A word or two to clear up any misconception which might arise, either in the House or outside, about the continuity of the Bill would, I think, be in place.
It is possible that merchants and farmers might not realise that the continuity of the Bill is still there. My right hon. and gallant Friend's intention was to give power in this Measure to make a subsidy in order to bring the price of fertilisers within the reach of farmers so that the full supply of them should be taken up in all circumstances. The position in the Bill now is that it can be extended from two years to two years; the first period is of one year, and with the affirmative Resolution procedure of the House, the Bill can be extended thereafter as the Minister considers necessary to ensure the full offtake of fertilisers.
May I, in conclusion, thank right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their assistance in dealing with this Measure so expeditiously, and now ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CIVIL DEFENCE (POLICE ACCOMMODATION)

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
These Regulations, and those referred to in the Motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, are virtually the same, each dealing with the


same matter for the two countries, and I suggest that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, it would be for the convenience of the House if the two were discussed together. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is here, and if any points are raised either of us will be able to deal with them.
Section 5 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, lays upon members of the police forces a duty of complying with the requirements as to training for and taking part in any form of civil defence for the time being recognised as appropriate. That Section only lays that duty on individual policemen and no duty is laid on police authorities as such until functions are conferred upon them by Regulations made under Section 2 of the Act.
Such Regulations were made—the Civil Defence (Police) (Training) Regulations, 1950. Those Regulations are, in fact, being repealed by the Regulations now before the House. They gave to the authorities the necessary power to train and equip. In fact those same Regulations are being reproduced in this Statutory Instrument with purely verbal amendments; and I take it the House will not wish to discuss that matter, which was dealt with previously and in regard to which there is virtually no change.
These Regulations, however, give an additional function to police authorities—that of providing protected headquarters from which operational control can be exercised over the police under air raid conditions. In other words, they give a function to the police authorities to provide specially strengthened buildings or parts of buildings or adjuncts to buildings which would make suitable headquarters in the event of bombing. That is a new Regulation, and it has been found necessary to bring it before the House in order to deal with one or two actual cases.
Buildings are now being erected in which it is necessary to make suitable provision to meet the eventuality of war. Provision cannot be made under the Civil Defence Act without these Regulations. In fact, the only way of dealing with the matter is by making the provision and paying for it under the Police Act.

Mr. Leslie Hale: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, the Regulations use the words "protected accommodation." Is there any definition of "accommodation" in the principal Act. There is no definition in the Regulations, and it might mean anything from providing a policeman with a house with a double-bolted door to the very necessary reinforcement of headquarters, which I gather is intended.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will check on that point and try and give the hon. Member the answer before the debate is over. My impression at the moment is that there is no precise definition. The word "accommodation" does not need definition and perhaps it is desirable to use a more general word such as "protected" in present circumstances. I cannot think of any occasion in which protected accommodation could be provided in circumstances where this House would not wish that to be done. However, the hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of developing that point if he wishes to do so.
The main importance of these Regulations is that they will enable the cost of providing this accommodation to be met out of the Civil Defence grant, which will be 75 per cent. or over, from the Exchequer. instead of out of the police grants, which will carry only a 50 per cent. Treasury subvention. I do not think I need say more in submitting these Regulations, but, if hon. Members have particular points to raise, either my hon. Friend or I will be able to deal with them.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I put a point and I understood I was to have an answer. It seems to me that "protected accommodation" is the vaguest of terms, covering anything from a bird's nest, in certain circumstances, particularly if it has an earth reinforcement below it. It is a meaningless term as it stands. Is there any definition? Otherwise, it seems that the powers being asked for are wider than has been represented. What is "protected accommodation"? Does it mean protected physically, or militarily; protected by police, protected by law, protected by Regulations, or what? It is a vague term, indeed.
I am not pressing the matter. One knows that the administration of these


Regulations will be subject to a good deal of supervision and that plans have to be submitted, but it seems to me a little bit hard if that is the position, for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to come and say, "I am asking for powers." In my view, what we want is some concrete headquarters, because we want adequate protection for the police in a bombing raid. Everyone agrees that that is necessary and desirable.
Under this term, the protection can be at any constable's house, or in any street or place or any side-street, and reserved for the police. It can be in any Anderson shelter—I am sorry, Waverley shelter—or any of the other various places used from time to time. I should have thought that the Joint Under-Secretary would have said that these words have a meaning, that they were put in because they have one, that this is what was meant, and that this was how it came about.

10.53 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think the hon. Member is making a mountain out of a molehill. These words have a perfectly plain meaning and are not in any sense terms of art. I should have thought it was unnecessary to define words of plain meaning.

Mr. Hale: Does this mean that the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us at the end that there is no definition? That was the question I asked.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: While the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I had the point checked and there is no definition. I submit that the words are perfectly clear and that the hon. Gentleman himself has suggested a number of quite desirable means of protecting a house. If it is necessary to protect a house to ensure that the police are able to carry out their duties under air raid conditions, I submit that the House would wish to see that was done, and would wish that expenditure to be met properly from Civil Defence, and not from police, sources.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am glad that these Regulations are being brought forward, and may I say that I hope that these definitions will be kept as wide as possible, because the Regulations may have to be used—I hope they will not—

in the circumstances of war, when, of course, we cannot say what will have to be met or what the exact needs will be. During the 1939–1945 war, this kind of thing grew in complexity and variety as the campaigns proceeded and more devilish instruments were invented by the enemy.
I think the police may find that in certain areas they will have to adopt forms of protection that we cannot possibly foresee now. Therefore, while I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was well advised to raise his point, and get an answer from the hon. Gentleman, I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman had to consult the Box before he could supply an answer—the answer that I know he would get.
I think the Regulations are to be welcomed. I hope that they will give reassurance to those people who have joined the police and are entitled to have any protection that the circumstances of the particular time may render necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
Draft Civil Defence (Police) (Scotland) Regulations, 1952 [copy presented 19th February], approved.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

BISCUIT MANUFACTURERS (LEVY)

10.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I beg to move,
That the Biscuits (Charges) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 230), dated 7th February, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
Put simply, the purpose of this Order is to withdraw from biscuit manufacturers the subsidy in respect of flour used in the manufacture of biscuits. Since 1944 there has been no subsidy in respect of biscuits. As the flour subsidy has grown from 20s. 3d. to its prevent level of 50s., so it has been sought by the levy upon biscuit manufacturers to regain the subsidy element in flour in order that biscuits should not enjoy the subsidy.
Between 1944 and 1949 it was possible exactly to regain the subsidy by a levy imposed upon biscuit manufacturers. The difficulty arose in 1949 when, following devaluation, the price of flour went up by 12s. Logically, it would have been wise to have raised the price of biscuits proportionately at that time, but the difficulty about marrying the levy with the price of biscuits is that it is extremely difficult to raise the price of biscuits except in elements of 1d. per lb. and to have done so then would have made an increase in price which would have been disproportionately larger than the element of subsidy involved.
This led to the position that in 1949, because of that practical difficulty, the 12s. increase in the price of flour was dealt with by a temporary fall in the levy. In other words, the biscuit manufacturers got into a position of indebtedness to the Treasury because, for practical reasons, it was not possible to adjust the price in elements of less than ld. So the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) came to the House—I think, in October, 1950—to bring the position up to date at that time by so increasing the levy as to create a levy in respect of current subsidy and a levy in respect of moneys due to the Treasury. The levy per 280 lb. sack then rose to a level of 56s. 4d. and put the position right at that time.
Since then there have been changes. In April, 1951, the price of ingredients—oils, fats, and sugars in particular—rose and that led the manufacturers to ask for increased prices. The then Minister was not wholly satisfied that he had all the appropriate information and called for investigations, but he was so far convinced of the difficulty of the position of the biscuit manufacturers at that time that he allowed them temporarily to suspend that element of the levy in respect of money owed to the Treasury. In April, 1951, the levy was reduced to the level of 45s., the amount necessary to repay the subsidy at the current rate, but the indebtedness was allowed to run on until the Minister of the day could see the position in full.
In October, 1951, there came a new element—an increase in the price of wheat and milling and its distribution. This led to an increase in the flour subsidy of 5s. and so again, it could well be argued,

prices should have gone up. Since that time, continuing the work of the late Minister of Food, the examination of costs has gone on.
The purpose of the Order is to clear up the position and raise the levy on biscuits to a level which will not only mean the return to the Treasury of subsidy at its present level of 50s. but will also secure, by the additional 11s. 3d., the repayment to the Treasury by the biscuit manufacturers of the amount that is due in arrears. The amount of arrears is about £530,000, and of that £365,000 had been incurred before September, 1950, and £165,000 since that date. This Order will achieve stocktaking of the position and determine the level of biscuit levy at a level which will mean reimbursement of the Treasury at current subsidy level, repayment of back money, and adjustments which were put before the last Minister, as they were before my right hon. Friend, in respect of increased costs.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure the House is obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his endeavour to explain simply something which is really quite difficult, as I know from my previous endeavour to explain a similar Order to the House. I am not so well informed about the arithmetic of the matter as I used to be, but I would make the point quite plain that I do not think I can go all the way with the Parliamentary Secretary in his suggestion that his clearing up of the position is what my right hon. Friend the Minister in the last Government would have done. He will admit that my right hon. Friend, when he was Minister, was not prepared to concede the price increase on biscuits. The circumstances may have changed, but that should be made clear to the House.
I know the difficulty about raising points on this charges Order, because there is also a price increase Order. I will confine my remarks to one or two questions. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the addition to the subsidy figure would have been if the Order had not been made? What is the position in terms of subsidy, both as an annual rate and as far as the current financial year is concerned?
Can he assure the House about another matter on which, frankly, I am not too clear? I may be wrong but it seems to


me that an element of margin has been taken into account in this calculation, because this cannot be considered apart from the price increase Order. I do not want to say much about that Order, except that the one must be considered in the context of the other. In the Press statement issued by the Ministry, reference was made to increased production costs. If allowance is made for them by way of an increased margin, I presume the sum would be arrived at by taking the two together, but as I understand the position, there is not an equation between the charges Order and the price increase.
In other words, this charges Order is not similar to the previous charges Order. It is primarily serving the same purpose, but I suspect that it does contain an element to offset the claim made for increased production costs. It would be more appropriate to discuss that on the price Order, if the House wishes, but this is the appropriate occasion to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the facts are. I know that the distributors' margin is another matter; it is a percentage margin, and it will have gone up with the price increase.
There is another point I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would like to take the occasion of giving an assurance. When I explained the charges Order to which he has referred—of which he has given, again, a simple explanation—the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) suspected that the Ministry were being dictated to by the Treasury. The Parliamentary Secretary will be obliged to me for giving him the opportunity of telling the House it was not so, as it was not on the previous occasion.

11.9 p.m.

Dr. Hill: To deal with the last point first, the Treasury requires that, no subsidy being payable in respect of biscuits, every effort should be made by the procedure of levy to secure the return of the subsidy. To deal with the hon. Gentleman's other two points, the amount of subsidy which is paid or which is involved in respect of biscuits generally, and subsequently recovered by the normal procedure of levy, is in the region of £5 million per year.

Mr. Willey: That is the total figure?

Dr. Hill: Yes. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he is right that there is not an exact equation between the increased levy and the increased price of biscuits. The price, as he knows, was raised by 1d. a lb. The equation is the increased levy, on the one hand, and a number of elements on the other, including higher costs. Perhaps I may put the position simply by translating it into terms of a cwt. of biscuits and getting away from the 280 lb. sack of flour.
A penny increase means a sum of 9s. 4d. Of that, 7s. goes to the manufacturer of biscuits. But the extra levy imposed by this Order amounts to 4s. 4d. Therefore, to meet the increased costs with which his right hon. Friend was confronted, and with which we have been confronted, there is the amount of 2s. 8d. per cwt. of biscuits—the difference between the 7s. which is retained by the manufacturer and the 4s. 4d. which is the element in respect of the increased levy and 2s. 8d. per cwt. of biscuits is the amount which is implicit in this Order in respect of the increased costs sustained by the manufacturer.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged for that explanation. I was right in believing that a substantial element had been allowed for increased costs, and I think it is fair to my right hon. Friend to say that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend are not following the path of their predecessors. While we were examining the matter, it was no more than an examination, following a refusal to allow an increase in the price of biscuits.

Dr. Hill: My only point in reply to that is that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was sufficiently impressed by the case put before him to permit a temporary cessation of the repayment of that additional levy which was in respect of money owed. He met the applicants and was sufficiently impressed to say that such was their case that the Department would not ask for repayment for the time being, but would wait for the day when the money could be fully repaid.

Mr. Willey: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can claim to be following the example of my right hon. Friend, whose only step was to suspend the recovery of what I previously described as a gratuitous subsidy I do not want to go out of my way to quarrel with the


hon. Gentleman, but I am saying it was no more than that. In fact, our decision was not to allow an increase but to pursue those inquiries which the Parliamentary Secretary has said have led the present Minister to allow the increased costs covered by this Order.

Mr. I. Mikardo: As I have the honour to represent a part of the borough of Reading, which is the first name we think of in connection with biscuits, I hope I may intervene in this loving duologue, in which each hon. Gentleman has leaped to make a point before the other has sat down, in order to associate myself with the thanks expressed to the Parliamentary Secretary for his clear and patient exposition of a matter which even we in Reading find complex and intricate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Biscuits (Charges) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 230), dated 7th February, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

EMPLOYMENT (NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES)

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Notification of Vacancies Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 136), dated 29th January, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be annulled.
My purpose is to secure from the Government a clear explanation of the purpose of this Order, and their interpretation of its Articles. I have long been concerned about the liberty of the individual, and in 30 years as a trade unionist, and as one who has taken some share in joint consultation in industry, I believe that the most fundamental liberty of the worker is his right to choose his own job in his own way. That makes a willing and an efficient worker. I should like to know whether this Order, which is very wide and covers a large number of people, does infringe the liberty of the worker in the way it might do if it were interpreted in certain ways.
Why have we had an Order of this kind? When the late Government introduced similar Orders, we heard strong objections from the other side of

the House, and I personally had great sympathy with the views then expressed. I should like to make two quotations from speeches by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during those debates, and to ask how they square an Order of this kind with the speeches they then made. The present Home Secretary, when a Control of Engagement Order was discussed on 3rd November, 1947, made this statement:
Here we are discussing an Order that was made while Parliament was taking an enforced holiday.
This Parliament was also taking an enforced holiday while this Order was being prepared. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on:
This point alone is worthy of the consideration of a legislature such as ours, and that such a change ought not to be made until it has been justified generally, until every aspect of it has been discussed, clause by clause, and if necessary, line by line. It touches so nearly the liberties of the people that no legislation dealing with a subject like this should be made in some Ministerial backroom, or behind the back of Parliament and the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1377.]
In the same debate the present Financial Secretary made clear his objection to an Order of this kind. To some extent this covers the view I have generally held. He said:
It raised the question of the right of the State, in time of peace, to control the places and employments in which its subjects work. That is a matter of major importance, and it is surely quite deplorable that wartime emergency powers should have been abused for this purpose. This is a matter which, if it were done at all, should have been done by the procedure of a Bill.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Yates: I am glad to hear hon. Members say "Hear, hear," because that was the view expressed by the party opposite when they were in Opposition. The present Financial Secretary went on to say:
Surely major matters of this sort should not be dealt with by orders which come into effect before they can be discussed in the House, and have the further defect that cannot be amended.

Sir John Mellor: I think the hon. Gentleman said that this Order was made while the House was having an enforced holiday. The Order was made on 29th January, the day on which we resumed after Christmas.

Mr. Yates: That is so; it was laid on 29th January; but this Order was certainly prepared during that enforced holiday.

Sir J. Mellor: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the end of the Order, he will find it is dated 29th January, 1952. and signed by the Minister of Labour. That was the date on which the Order was not only laid but made.

Mr. Yates: I quite agree. What I am saying is that the Order was prepared, carefully considered and possibly negotiated in certain ways, and was then laid before Parliament on 29th January. I am not arguing that; but it seemed very similar.
The present Financial Secretary went on to say:
It is a very damaging precedent. Hon. Members may have to look to the future, and it may be that this precedent will be followed by other Governments of different political complexions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1405–6.]
I do not understand why the present Government introduce an Order of this nature, not in the form of a Bill which can be amended but in the form of an Order of this sort, when they condemned the previous Government for having introduced just such an Order.
I now wish to refer to the Order itself, and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be good enough to explain to us exactly how it is to be interpreted.
Article 3 says:
Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this Order …
(b) no person shall engage any person for employment unless that person has been submitted to him for that employment by a local office or a scheduled employment agency.
Does that mean that a worker may go to an employer and arrange beforehand that he can be employed; and do the employer and the worker go to the employment exchange in order to secure that? Does it mean they can work it in that way? Or does it mean that all those who are affected by this Order must submit themselves?
I should like also to ask why the number of people included in the Order has been increased over the previous Order. For example, the previous Order included men between the ages of 18 and 50 and women between the ages of 18 and 40, but this Order includes men up to the

age of 65 and women up to the age of 60. It seems to me a little unfortunate that older people should be subject to this kind of system, which causes them to move about the country and creates a feeling of uneasiness, especially as they grow older. I want to know why the Order includes a much larger number of people. On previous occasions, during discussions in the House, it has been admitted that to include people up to the age of 50 was a serious innovation.
Speaking in the House on Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary said that a worker does not have to have a permit. This Order does not make that assurance clear to me, except in so far as it refers to the permit which may be given to a worker who is exempted from the Order. Does the worker included within the Order have to have a permit to obtain employment? In Birmingham, for example, it appears that a worker who comes under the Order cannot obtain a job unless he has a card of some kind. That seems to me to be a permit—it permits him to go to obtain employment.

Mr. Jack Jones: An introduction.

Mr. Yates: It may be an introduction. I want to quote from the "Birmingham Gazette" of 29th February, from a column headed "Job Cards, the New Shortage". It says:
So great has been the rush of employers wanting men, that some Birmingham Employment Exchanges have run out of forms for the four-days-old Notification of Vacancies Order.
The article goes on to say:
The new Order has introduced five new cards and work has doubled and trebled in many exchanges.
When we were in power hon. Members opposite expected us not to increase paper work and hordes of officials. It says in this article that a double card is given to a worker going to a new job, and adds:
Half that card is returned to the exchange and the other half is retained by the employer to show that he has complied with the Order. But when Birmingham Exchange managers met to discuss problems in dealing with the new Order the shortage of forms and shortage of staff were reported to be the only difficulties they had found.
It is clear that a worker cannot obtain a job unless he has the necessary card or permit.
What will be the effect of this Order of the system of labour inspectorates which the Minister of Labour announced on Monday? According to column 61 of the Official Report on Monday the Minister said:
It will also be appreciated that the matter of the labour supply inspectorate was also the subject of considerable discussion and eventual agreement. What is intended is that inspectors who have some technical and other experience, many of them wartime experience, would go to factories from which requests for further men were made, and discuss with the management whether those persons ought to be supplied or whether, by a reorganisation of the workers already there or some upgradings, fewer or no new recruits would be required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 61.]
It seems to me that the work of the inspectorates might have a very serious effect upon the rights of the workers and their position in the works.
I think that it could, for unless we can be quite clear how these men are to work, there will be the most serious effect on industries such as those in Birmingham. One employer in the jewellery quarter in that city has said to me that he envisaged Ministry of Labour inspectors as now dominating industries as to what their labour position would be and I must say that, considering a city like Birmingham, with its thousand trades, and a very large number of small factories, one can see very serious difficulties to be faced. It might be very serious for our industries if, in fact, an employer is first of all to be prosecuted if he employs the labour which he believes is necessary but which the Ministry might consider unnecessary.
I am rather surprised that we have not had a clearer understanding of this Order as it would affect a large city like Birmingham. I can only say that in many industries there, as a result of war conditions, and for other reasons, employers have lost some of their most skilled men. Many, unfortuniately, have never returned and unless we are very careful how we deal with all these industries, the position may be very serious in the future.
I should like to ask whether the employment exchanges could, for example, refuse to pay unemployment benefit. I had a case quoted to me a few days ago of a man working in Coventry who, because of ill-health, felt it necessary to

give up his job and not travel so far to work. He has always obtained his own work, for in his case the employment exchange never seemed to fit him in. Now, he has not been successful in obtaining another job which would suit him—and suit him in several ways because he has heart trouble—and, having given up his job in Coventry, he cannot get unemployment benefit because he is considered to have given up his job without just cause. Will an Order of this nature work in such a way that large numbers of men might gradually come to be considered as "not genuinely seeking work?" I ask because that is something which reminds us of years gone by, and with very bitter memories.
I should like now to refer to the exemptions from this Order. Large numbers appear to be exempt—agricultural workers, coalminers, dockers, merchant seamen, policemen, firemen, and those employed in a managerial, professional, administrative, or executive capacity. What does this mean? It includes general foremen and head foremen, but not foremen, chargemen, or pieceworkers, or anybody paid by the hour. Professional and administrative workers are exempt. So are accountants, architects, journalists, solicitors, doctors, dentists, and so on. It seems to me that all at the top are free and those at the bottom are to be subject to this Order. I do not see why there should be that discrimination.
I have belonged to my trade union, the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union, for 30 years, and, of course, I know that clerks will be subject to this Order. The Order covers clerks, shop assistants, engineers, railwaymen, textile workers and so on. It seems a little unfair that certain classes of people should have to suffer. Perhaps we shall be told something about that.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary in what spirit this Order is to be administered. He made a speech in Birmingham on 19th January and he was reported in the "Birmingham Post" under the heading "Immense Amount of Labour Needed; Change of Jobs Inevitable." That report said:
There was a feeling of under-employment and people had been hanging on to labour, but that labour was wanted in other directions. It will mean people changing their jobs and


they do not like that.' Sir Peter told the annual meeting of the Edgbaston Division Unionist Association at Empire House. 'It will mean less money sometimes, and they do not like that. It will mean leaving home sometimes' …
I do not know whether the Minister had this Order in view, but I think it is a very serious matter for workers when they have to realise there is no alternative but to leave their homes. This House should consider very carefully how the Order is to be administered if that is to be its effect. Undoubtedly this is an immense undertaking for the Government and I am sure the House generally is anxious to see that every facility is given, provided we have the necessary safeguard.
I feel very strongly upon matters of this kind and I should like to think we can feel that this Order does safeguard the cherished liberties of the worker. I believe the most valuable liberty is that which permits the individual to work at the job he likes. That is the spirit in which this House should consider this Order and it is in that spirit that I have asked my questions and moved the Prayer.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: I beg to second the Motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates).
My hon. Friend has covered the ground so well that it makes my task very simple. I have had a fairly long connection with the Ministry of Labour as a member of a large local employment exchange committee. Having also served on courts of referees as an assessor and on various committees connected with the Ministry, I am fully aware of the problems which arise at the local level. These problems are immense and they vary from place to place on matters of interpretation.
I therefore feel great concern about the new Notification of Vacancies Order, in spite of assurances which have been given to the contrary. I should like to say that, whilst regretting that the Minister of Labour is not in his place, he or someone in his Department in December last gave a "hand-out" to the Press with reference to proposals which were to be included in the Control of Engagements Order. It was clearly indicated that this new Control of Engagements Order was to be submitted to the

Cabinet in January whilst Parliament was enjoying its long sleep. I am sorry I cannot speak directly to the Minister of Labour on this matter, because I think it is most important.
I considered the proposals which were submitted by the Minister or which were handed to the Press, at a public meeting, and they received the full-blooded reaction which they richly deserved. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what occurred in the meanwhile to cause him completely to drop the Control of Engagement Order and bring forward this sickly child from a vigorous parent in the form of a Notification of Vacancies Order. Under the original Order, people were going to be made to sit up. They were to be told where they would work. and a vast inspectorate was to be employed to inspect staffs and factories to prove the justification, or otherwise, of claims made for staffs.
Large staffs were to move under the direction of the inspectorate, and factories regarded as performing unessential work were to be closed down. I should appreciate a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the Minister, on this particular matter, because it appears to me that something has been dropped and we have this Order substituted. I speak on this matter as one who has adjudicated at employment exchanges in hundreds of cases and as one who has appeared, on the other side, to defend the workpeople and those unemployed in order to try and secure their benefits.
My experience prompts me to reserve my decision on this Order, though not exactly to await events, but, if I can, to play some small part in shaping them. I therefore remain unconvinced that the Notification of Vacancies Order is to do exactly nothing apart from applying the delightful and sophisticated art of persuasion. We are all so very clever in the art of persuasion. A person persuaded against his will will make an unwilling agent in economic recovery, or for purposes for which we need labour. I shall be able to quote from speeches by those who sit on the Government Front Bench. It is only fair that I should refer to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Would the hon. Gentleman read his speech just a little slower?

Mr. Craddock: It is only fair that I should quote right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who consistently and vociferously demanded, when in Opposition, the removal of all controls.

Mr. Fell: Reading.

Mr. Craddock: The newspapers were full of speeches from hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Fell: Reading.

Mr. Craddock: —declaiming against controls of any kind. The hon. Gentleman does not like this reminder, that is all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite posed before the public as pure lily-whites in the art of persuasion.

Mr. Fell: Reading.

Mr. Craddock: We say that that is where the story ends, because now that they are vested with authority they have thrown overboard such niceties, and have, for other reasons, embraced the hideous figure that previously assailed their consciences. Previous progeny of this Government do not help me to adopt this new offspring, which, quite frankly, leaves me with the feeling that the whole story has not been told. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the manpower debate last Monday, explained nothing, and in a most unconvincing speech threw into the arena the new found—

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to read his speech all the time?

Mr. Speaker: The reading of speeches is not in order. The use of a copious note, as it has sometimes been described, is.

Mr. Craddock: When the hon Gentleman makes his speech I hope he will not have notes in his hands.
We have been told we shall get great benefits from the gentle art of persuasion.

Mr. Fell: We have had that bit.

Mr. Craddock: If the Order is to do nothing, why introduce it? The Parliamentary Secretary, for no reason at all, gave us a statement which, he said, was not in any way compelling. He said an employer could not force a person to accept a post; neither was the employee obliged to accept it. It does not seem to me, if there is no compulsion

about this matter, that there is any need for the Order to be brought in. We are told that now we have at least 500,000 people who are unemployed, very largely due to the policy which has been carried out by the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Every Measure which this Government have introduced has very largely brought about the position with which the country is now faced today.

Mr. Robert Carr: Would the hon. Gentleman say by whom and when it was said that unemployment was half a million?

Mr. Craddock: While it is only an estimate, I feel that the unemployment figure will be proved to be more than half a million when the figures are available. I do not know that I would accept the figure brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. A. Robens) the other day that by the end of the year it will be a million, but I am convinced today that it is more than half a million. I say to hon. Members opposite that the Government have contributed largely to the unemployment figures because of their policy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have for long been accusing the workers of going slow and of absenteeism. It is a simple matter to secure the official figures of absenteeism.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his remarks to the contents of the Order we are discussing. It seems to me that, although I can see some faint link between what he is saying and the Order, he is going a little wide, and I must ask him to comply more strictly with the rules of order.

Mr. Craddock: I am sorry, Sir. I should like to quote the attitude and expressions of opinion when this subject was before the House on 3rd November, 1947. I will quote the words of the present Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) which are relevant to this matter.
He said:
The order does three important things. First of all, it cuts definitely and clearly into the freedom of choice—

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: What Order is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Craddock: It was on the Control of Engagement Order. If one takes Article 3 (b) in its entirety, it will be seen that it has been brought from the Control of Engagement Order into the present Order.

Mr. Yates: It is exactly the same.

Mr. Craddock: I think I am entitled to quote the right hon. and learned Gentleman, seeing that this was the original debate which brought about the Control of Engagement Order, so that it can be seen what was his attitude. He said:
The Order does three important things. First of all, it cuts definitely and clearly into the freedom of choice both of the worker to work as he wants and of the employer to engage him. It is clearly, from the manner of expression of the right hon. Gentleman, only the herald of further steps towards the conscription of labour, and it is the thin end of a wedge which will determine not only our industrial but our spiritual future as a nation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on:
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman"—
that was the then Minister of Labour—
no word of his has dissipated this doubt and trouble in our minds—that the army out of which he is seeking to recruit for the essential industries is the army of the unemployed. The people who will really be affected by this are those whom either economic pressure or some personal difficulty has put out of a job. Two results inevitably follow. In the first place, where we have non-essential industries we are paying a premium on those which are large and are able, by their financial resources, to carry their labour in the hope that they will reach a busier time. Secondly, we are causing people to stick to non-essential jobs because of the uncertainty with which they will be faced if they lose their jobs and go into unemployment;—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1372–3.]
A speech made by the present Prime Minister on the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, which was debated in the House on 8th August, 1947, runs as follows:
They can take anyone from his or her home, and send them anywhere they please, put them to any toil they may choose, however unsuited they may be to that toil, or however much they may resent their compulsory addiction to it. Even that does not satisfy them. This power to choose or change occupation, hitherto considered to be the mark of the difference between democracy and serfdom in one form or another…"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 1802.]

We feel very keenly about this matter. No doubt at a Ministerial level discussions have taken place with the T.U.C.; no doubt the matter has been very carefully examined. But we are much concerned and we are trying to secure clarification. Some of us on these benches are not satisfied. As a trade unionist, the whole of my life has been devoted to seeing that essential safeguards are retained, and I await a satisfactory statement from the Parliamentary Secretary.

11.59 p.m.

Captain M. Hewitson (Kingston-upon-Hull, Central): I can quite understand the fears of my hon. Friends, because we know that throughout their public lifetime they have stood very firmly for the freedom of the individual. In moving the annulment of this Order, the House will give them credit for sincerity. But some of the fears expressed in debate so far are very wide of the mark. This is not an Order in the ordinary sense of Orders that we receive in this House. It is what I would call a negotiated Order; everything in it has been negotiated between the Minister and the T.U.C.
The T.U.C. will come under the definition of my hon. Friend, I suppose, of being pure lilywhites in the art of persuasion. My union happens to be an employment agency within the terms of the Order. We have just under one million members. To put forward criticism such as we have heard is not really fair. The hon. Gentlemen are assuming that the position of the country is very easy, that there is prosperity, and no worries of any description. But we have the re-armament programme and labour has to be found for it, whether we like it or not. I think the country as a whole recognises that we must have some form of re-armament programme, and would it be fair in the interests of the nation to allow people to make ice-cream when they could be doing something vital for the nation? Let us face facts. From the very beginning the T.U.C. were called in and over a period negotiations took place which resulted in the Order.

Mr. Yates: Is there to be no ice-cream making?

Captain Hewitson: I do not know, because I cannot say whether ice-cream making is in the national interest, although I did read in the newspapers that they are trying to experiment with alcohol in ice-cream north of the Border.
What we must realise is that we have a responsibility. Is it suggested by my hon. Friends that the T.U.C. did not seek the necessary safeguards in the interest of the great mass of workers we have heard about tonight? The T.U.C. do not take these things lightly, and although Parliament may be on holiday, and hon. Gentlemen may be sleeping or taking long periods of rest, the T.U.C. are working the whole of the time, and did consult with the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Order.
I can say without hesitation that the T.U.C. wholly accept this Order in its entirety. I can also say that the majority of the large unions in the country are acting as agencies in the operation of the Order. We shall operate it, and give it the same sanctity that we give our national agreements. When we enter into an agreement we see it through, and we shall work this Order in the trade union movement until such time as the Minister breaks it, and in that case we can handle that end of it as well. Until such a thing as that happens, we shall give the Order the same sanctity as a trade union agreement. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will give the safeguards that have been put forward and accepted, and when my hon. Friends hear the safeguards and the story of the negotiation to the agreement, I am sure they will withdraw their Motion.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I am pleased to support what has just been said by the hon. Member for Hull, Central (Mr. Hewitson), and I am particularly glad that he emphasised the fact that the Order was only arrived at after the fullest consultation with the T.U.C. and the employers. In spite of that, however, I think it is right that we should question why it was necessary. One of the chief reasons seems to me to be in the interests of full employment. Hon. Members opposite have recently expressed much concern about the danger of unemployment. This Order, perhaps only in a small way, but none the less

an important way, is designed to play its part in the policy of maintaining full employment.
In the short term, this Order, because it will help to ease and speed up the transfer of labour to essential industries of export and defence, will help to minimise the temporary dislocation of employment which does occur in a transfer of labour on the scale which we have to attempt. In the long term, by getting labour as quickly as possible into the essential export industries, it will help to overcome the economic crisis which is the chief threat to full employment.
The threat of heavy unemployment does not arise from lack of demand, even though there may be lack of demand in certain localised industries at the moment. The threat still rests mainly in the danger to our ability to import the raw materials we must have to keep all our people at work. To get these raw materials we have to export more. If this Order can help to get people into these export industries more quickly, it will be playing a big part in helping to avert any threat of mass unemployment.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Craddock), expressed particular fears about this, and I would say to him that the greater his fears the greater should be his reasons for supporting this Order, and not praying against it. I felt that the hon. Member's statement about half a million unemployed was not very helpful. It is not helpful, in this national crisis, to make alarmist statements, and it is a fact—and I challenge the hon. Member to deny it—that the unemployment figures for male workers have never been lower at this time of year than they are now.
I think this Order should be supported, but it remains to be asked why this purpose is to be achieved by an Order and not by legislation. I would have much preferred legislation. But hon. Members who are raising this point, as I admit in all sincerity, must remember the urgency of our situation. If the reasons I have given for the necessity of this action are valid, it is essential that the action should be taken quickly. Hon. Members should bear in mind that with the programme in front of Parliament at this time of year, any legislation on this subject would have to be delayed, and would take time.
If this Order has anything to do with helping to maintain full employment, as I believe it has, it is important to do it quickly, and not to allow any tendency to unemployment to get out of hand. The Government would be failing in their duty if they allowed even two or three months to elapse before bringing in this Order. Apart from that consideration, I agree with other hon. Members who feel that this should have been done by legislation.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT Of previous debates on this subject he will find that he is sitting on the wrong side of the House. I have probably been associated with more debates on the control of employment than any other hon. Member, with one exception, and my task has always been to defend the steps for deploying and mobilising the labour power of the country. In that sense I came into conflict with my hon. Friends who have put down this Prayer. The only opportunity we have to discuss this matter is by putting down a Prayer.
This Order will affect potentially over 20 million people, and it is debate in this House only because the Opposition have put down a Prayer. On Monday, when it was to be discussed, we were devoting to the interests of 20 million workers the amount of time we should have devoted to one man. I think that is a shocking and scandalous state of things, and the Government ought to have behaved with much more courage.
I have three reasons for associating myself with this Prayer. The first reason is the manner in which this House has been treated, about which hon. Members on both sides ought to be concerned. If when we were in Office we had behaved in this way hon. Gentlemen opposite would have raised the roof—and rightly. Let us see what happened on this occasion. This Order was laid on 29th January. The debate on the economic situation was taking place, and two Ministers referred to the Order in the course of that debate. The Government Chief Whip and the Chancellor were on the Front Bench and a number of interjections were made on points of order asking where the Order was, but the

Order was not produced until the following day.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: The same day.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary came down to the House and heard the complaints; his right hon. Friend the Minister came down to the House, but did not know where the Order was. It was not until ten o'clock that the Order arrived in the Library; but copies were not available in the Vote Office until the next day.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The same night.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If they were available the same night it was after the debate had concluded, after ten o'clock. When the Leader of the House was asked the next day whether he would provide special time to discuss this very important matter he said it could be debated in the course of the rest of the debate left for that day. I think that is a scandalous way to treat this House on such an important matter.
But what had happened? The previous night the Press had been given a hand-out; there had been made available in the Library and to the public copies of a "Quiz" explaining the Order; but the Order was not available to hon. Members. What has happened since? A Prayer has been put down: the Prayer has been taken off: the Prayer has been put down again; and tonight, for the first time since 1940, when we are discussing a matter affecting the employment of all the people in this country, the Minister of Labour is absent from this Chamber. That is the first time it has happened since 1940. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many Socialists are here?"] It is the Minister's responsibility to explain to the House what he is doing by this Order; it is not the responsibility of the Opposition.
That is one of the reasons why I associate myself with the Prayer. Let us consider what occurred on Monday when the Minister was making his speech. He referred cursorily to the Order. He was asked for certain proofs of a suggestion he was making, but apparently he had not even brought the Order with him and apparently he did not even have a note about it in his brief. He said he


would leave it to the hon. Baronet to explain when he replied to the debate.
But what happened when the hon. Baronet replied to the debate? One has only to look at HANSARD to see what he said. Well, the notes were coming from the Box like confetti. I agree that we had a very good performance; I saw nothing better at the Palladium last week. But it gave us no indication at all of the nature of this Order and, as a House of Commons, we are still without any explanation of it from the Government of the day. In fact, the only people who have had explanations, the only people who have had guarantees, are the T.U.C. General Council and the British Employers' Federation.

Captain Hewitson: Why not?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I fully agree that they should be given. I am probably as much acquainted with the process as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, Central (Captain Hewitson). I have been engaged in it much more than he has. But this House of Commons, which is asked to approve the agreement, has been denied the information. Must we accept responsibility for private agreements without any explanation at all?

Mr. T. O'Brien: Would my right hon. Friend explain what he means by "private agreements"? Does he suggest that a body with the experience and prestige and responsibility of the British Trades Union Congress makes private agreements behind the back of this honourable House?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the undertakings to which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, Central, refers—and he is a colleague on the Council of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien)—have never been disclosed to the House.

Mr. Yates: We should know.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We ought to know what the safeguards are, but as far as the House is concerned, they are private.
That is another reason why I associate myself with the Prayer, in order to try to get some indication of what is meant by

the Order. I ask hon. Members to remember what happened on Monday night, and I want to refer to HANSARD in this respect. I suggest that hon. Members should read column 100 of HANSARD of 3rd March to see a reply which the hon. Baronet gave to my interjection. He said the worker was free, but when he came to the latter part of his statement he seemed to read more correctly the minute which had been sent to him from the Box. He said:
There is no sanction on the man in any shape or form.
He added:
He can be given a permit to find his own job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 100.]
Thus, to find his own job the worker must have a permit. There it is in HANSARD; there is that part of the Minute sent to the hon. Baronet from the Box which I think he quoted quite correctly. That is an indication of the general confusion which has been caused concerning this Order and the explanations of it which have been made to the public. Now let me come to the next reason. It is, and I ought to say this for the record, that I do not accept the doctrine—and I am speaking for myself—that agreements made outside this House and requiring political approval should not have political examination in this House.
It will be recalled that when I quoted T.U.C. approval for the Control of Engagement Order, hon. Members on the other side of the House pooh-poohed it and brushed me out of the way. But, tonight they embrace such action in a manner almost without precedent. If the doctrine that one must not examine in this House those things for which we give political authority, goodness knows what hon. Members opposite will do with the Steel House or Shell-Mex in the next few months, or a year or two.
This is a breach of pledge. In the introduction of this Order, there is a piece of bad faith with the electorate. Hon. Members opposite made certain promises, and one was that there should be no control; that labour should be free, and they went even farther. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Private Secretary wants to assist his chief; I do not suggest that his chief may require any assistance, but in order that the Parliamentary Private


Secretary may have some knowledge, I would quote from a declaration by the present Prime Minister:
I make it absolutely clear that I will not support it as a part of our peace-time system, nor I believe will the great party I have the honour to lead—nor will the liberal-minded men and women—Conservative, Liberal, or Labour—accept this altogether un-British conception. Before such a departure from our British standards could be made in time of peace, not only Parliament, but the people must be consulted. Was not this the very kind of thing we fought against in the war, and thought we had beaten down for ever with our strong right of arm?
Here is the present Prime Minister saying that before there can be a Control of Engagement Order in peace-time, the electorate should be consulted. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"]—The date is 17 Aug. 1947, just after the Supplies and Services Act had been passed in this House. It was from a broadcast speech, and the extract is in the Conservative Election Campaign Guide.
It is part of my job—and I would say that I make no point of that—to tell the men who use industrial action for political purposes that they are doing something which is wholly wrong. I said it last week-end, and I shall say it again this, that I am absolutely against anarchy in the coal fields in an effort to try to blacken the Government of the day. But what remedy have these people? Rt. hon. and hon. Members opposite were returned on certain promises, and now they come here and swallow their promises. The men who tend to engage in subversive action are saying that the Conservatives are abusing democracy and destroying the faith which the people have in Parliament.
What I claim is that here is the Prime Minister of the day saying that before there should be a Control of Engagement Order, there ought to be an Election. This really is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will have a very difficult task over the next couple of years and the first thing he must establish with the trade unionists and industrial workers of this country is good faith, and that what the Government promised before they came into power they will endeavour to carry out.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter) rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, I am trying to reason this thing out and be sensible. I do not want to exaggerate my arguments or to inflame the atmosphere.

Mr. McCorquodale: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is making a false point. The whole of Conservative Party policy was against direction of labour and we are still against it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made that quite clear in a statement he made.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I know this field fairly well.
The Prime Minister made this statement on the Supplies and Services (Extended Services) (Transitional Powers) Act. He was referring to the control of engagement. I will not quote the stronger occasion when we had a debate on a Prayer relating to the Control of Engagement Order and the present Prime Minister was much more specific. Therefore, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) has made a false point.

Mr. McCorquodale: But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Control of Engagement Order had in it direction of labour as a last resort.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman. Surely he knows quite differently, and if he does not know he has the hon. and learned Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade by his side who can tell him that that did not derive from the Control of Engagement Order. The power of direction arose directly from Defence Regulation 58A. I am astonished that he should have forgotten the point.
What I have to prove is that this is a Control of Engagement Order. Let us see what happens. The Minister of Labour had to face this problem. He said one does not have to go to the Order for the instructions. It is astonishing that the purposes of this Order are explained not in the Order but on the face of the "Quiz," a popular non-Parliamentary document. What does he conceive the problem to be? He says there:
Britain is faced with its hardest post-war task. There are two big jobs to be done…We have not enough men and women on these jobs today. This means that work which is in


the national interest must have priority over less essential work.
That is why this Order had to be made. The effect of the Order will be that employers will only be able to engage the workers they need…by notifying their vacancies to an employment exchange. The result will be that the employment exchanges will be able to guide those seeking work into jobs which are not only suitable to them but also of importance to the nation.
I understand there are 70,000 vacancies in the armament industry now. On Monday the Minister told us the mining industry would take all the men it could get. Agriculture would take thousands. The brick-works wanted as many as they could get. There was his problem. What was he to do? He had a very great difficulty? He had all these pledges staring him in the face. He had the conscience of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to worry about. All the thunder of Nuremberg was brought by the present Home Secretary against this employment control. The Assistant Postmaster-General might even resign. What would happen to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), if they brought in a Control of Engagement Order, no one knows. He might even resign from the Conservative Party.
What did the Minister do? He picked up the Control of Engagement Order and said, "I cannot bring that in again. We have prayed against it so often. We have had four all-night Sittings about it. That would be too brazen." He had a brilliant brain-wave. I think it is due to his lawyer's training. Alter the name on the brief and one persuaded oneself it was a different case. Alter the name of the Order and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues in the Cabinet would not notice it.
Hon. Gentlemen who were so vehement about this Control of Engagement Order, and who prayed against it altogether six times, I think, should have compared the Notification of Vacancies Order with the Control of Engagement Order. And, word for word, the purpose of this latter Order is contained, with one exception, in the Notification of Vacancies Order. I imagine the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his legal training, must have come across the case of substituting horses on the race-course, "the ringer." These "ringers" were recently sent to jail, but the political "ringer" still has, as his punishment, industrial action in

pursuit of political aims. That is all that has happened.

Mr. McCorquodale: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He had training under the best Minister of Labour this country has ever seen, the late Ernie Bevin. If he will take the Order, he will see the substance of it is in Article 3. Article 3 (a) and (b) is reproduced, word for word, in the Notification of Vacancies Order. That is awkward for the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, is it not? He was venomous about this. It is awkward for the Prime Minister.
The other effective part is that dealing with "Excepted Persons." The effective part is in paragraph 6. If the right hon. Member for Epsom would look at this paragraph in the Notification of Vacancies Order, and compare it with the Control of Engagement Order, well, there one is. One merely changes the title and then tries to convince this House that this is a much more innocent thing than was ever introduced by the Labour Government.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Is not the right hon. Gentleman on rather a dangerous argument? He is saying this Order is, in fact, the same as the Control of Engagement Order. If that is so, why is he attacking it now, when he has spent six years defending it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and learned Member should wait for it. The point I am making now is that the Notification of Vacancies Order is the Order against which the hon. and learned Gentleman prayed. What I have to establish, if I am to prove the breach of faith, is that this is in substance, with one exception, in wording, in form, in intention, the Control of Engagement Order, which hon. Members opposite prayed against.

Mr. Marlowe: Which the right hon. Gentleman always defended, and is now attacking.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know how long the hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House, but the point I am making is that the Conservative Party are bringing in a control of employment Order—because it is denied that this is


a control of employment Order. If they are bringing in such an Order—it is no use the right hon. Member for Epsom shaking his head, because his successor has said something entirely different. If they are bringing in a control of employment Order, then they are breaking undertakings given by them when they sought the votes of the country.

Mr. Dudley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is making great play about the Conservative Party having broken promises made at the last General Election. Would he like to specify the promises the Conservative Party have broken since they were returned to office?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: It would be out of order and would take too long.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Promises about lowering the cost of living, and that sort of thing. Fundamentally, this is a breach of the political attitude of the Conservative Party. I have quoted what the Prime Minister said in his broadcast about this very thing. The passage of time does not decrease the value of a pledge. Because they made a pledge a long time ago do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think people ought to forget it and allow them to break it?
I am astonished at the political morality of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I have pointed out that Article 3 of the Control of Engagement Order and Article 3 of the Notification of Vacancies Order are the same, with one exception. In each case Article 6 is the same. The purposes of the Control of Engagement Order are almost precisely the same as the purposes of this Notification of Vacancies Order.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite gave the game away. It was alleged by the Secretary of State that this did not affect the workers. Let us see how it works. For this purpose one can quote either the Control of Engagement Order or the Notification of Vacancies Order. I quote Article 3 (a):
no person shall seek to engage any person for employment otherwise than by notifying to

a local office or a scheduled employment agency particulars of the vacancy to be filled.
Every job that is going has to be notified to the exchange:
(b) no person shall engage any person for employment unless that person has been submitted to him for that employment by a local office or a scheduled employment agency.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much concerned about this.
An unemployed man goes to the exchange. There is a list, of vacancies there. He can be given a, card to go to any of those vacancies which have been approved by the Ministry of Labour. Suppose the man says, "I can get a job with employer B. I shall not go to the job of employer A."
What happens? The argument is that it does not affect the worker, but the worker must get a permit to go to job (b). Hon. Gentlemen opposite either are not reading the Order or they are not convinced of the sin they are committing. We must get this right. It is highly important if this is to be a success that there should not be any misapprehensions about the purpose. We must be careful because there are plenty of people who are only too anxious to take advanatge of any slip in the operation of this Order.
Let us see exactly what it says:
No person shall engage any person for employment unless that person has been submitted to him by an employment exchange.
What is the position of a man who does not want to go to job (a) but who wants to go to job (b) which the Ministry of Labour will not ratify?

Mr. McCorquodale: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want it from the ex-Parliamentary Secretary because he has ceased to have authority, but from the present Parliamentary Secretary who has authority for the time being.

Mr. McCorquodale: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the Minister of Labour two nights ago he would have found that he answered the exact question. He said that if a man refused to be persuaded, he would be entitled to go to a job to which we were not encouraging him to go:
That is the essence of it. If it were otherwise it would be direction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 61.]

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am delighted to hear it, but will the right hon. Gentleman compare the answer which the Minister of Labour gave, to the, minute read out by the Parliamentary Secretary from the box?
He said:
He can be given a permit to find his own job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 100.]
He can be given a permit. Suppose the placing officer refuses to give him a permit?

Mr. Charles Doughty: Then the placing officer gets the sack.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought there would have been a place for that in this Order, or in the quiz, or Press hand-out, but there is no provision here that he will get the sack. He must carry out the duties imposed on him by this order. There is no safeguard and if the unemployed man cannot get a permit from the vacancy officer there is no appeal to any tribunal.
The placing officer has complete authority in this matter. He is the man who will decide what jobs are to be offered. He will decide whether or not a permit is to be issued. If the right hon. Gentleman who raised this point will look at paragraph 6 (f) he will see that there is provision for the issue of these permits but no provision at all for an unemployed man, or an employer, to appeal against the decision of the vacancy officer not to give either an exemption certificate or a permit to an unemployed man.
I want to know why, for the first time since 1940, the right of a worker to appeal against a decision of the Minister has been denied him.

Mr. Doughty: There is no decision. One cannot appeal against something that is not a decision. That is elementary common sense.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know how much experience the hon. and learned Gentleman has, but when we had the Control of Engagement Order—

Mr. Doughty: For years I have been considering decisions and appeals from decisions. I know what a decision is and what an appeal is, and one cannot appeal from a decision which is not a decision.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We are in this position: that the unemployed man who cannot get a permit to go to a job that he wants has no remedy at all. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman has disclosed his identity, or his past at any rate, I would refer him to the fact that under the Control of Engagement Order decisions were subject to the overriding Order 651 of 1943. On the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation, the unemployed man is going to be left without the right of going to any job.
In view of the accusations of the other side about the time taken in discussing this Order, I want to say that less time has been spent upon it than on any other Control of Employment Order since 1945. I am astonished hon. Gentlemen are so short-tempered about the small amount of time taken on it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is that why there are only eight Members on the other side?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman's return at a very late stage in the debate shows he has at least a trifle of interest in the subject.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the position under this Order. Under the old Order, the workman had the right to appeal and he had the offer of four jobs. It is true he had the possibility of direction and of a summons and a fine of £1 or so. Under the new Order he may have the offer of one job; he has no right of appeal; his employer would be summoned but the workman's suspension of benefit for refusing the offer of suitable employment would very much outweigh any fine that might have been imposed upon him under the old Order.
I warn my hon. Friends that this is the machine for the formal direction of labour.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If one compares the Control of Engagement Order with this Order, one can see how different it is. We ought to get undertakings here tonight about this Order. There are a lot of misapprehensions that can be created about it, but they can be created


only if there is no authoritative declaration from the Parliamentary Secretary of what it means.

Mr. Carr: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a man will have the choice of only one job?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I said he might only have the choice of one job. We want an assurance that he is not to be restricted to the strict terms of the Order. We ought to have an indication that this Order will be applied as generously in the offer and selection of jobs as was the old Control of Engagement Order. After all, in the quiz on the back of the Order the reply of the Minister to the question whether a man is under any obligation to take a job he does not want is: "No, not so far as this Order is concerned." That answer may be regarded as having some significance.
The Minister's remedy is obvious. We ought to have an undertaking and we are entitled to assurances on the Order. It would have been quite easy for the Minister himself to have given us these assurances. He knows the history and controversy connected with this Prayer. Members on both sides know we shall be held responsible for what takes place, and we ought to know exactly the intentions of the Minister in respect of the operation of the Order which at the moment provides no public safeguards, and which ought to be treated with the critical attitude I have adopted tonight.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I want to confine myself to the Order and not to make a speech on assumptions, fears, or repetition of what used to happen in the bad old days when the Control of Engagement Order was in operation. I happen to have been the first non-legal chairman appointed by the late Ernest Bevin to the Essential Work Tribunal in Manchester, and I claim some little knowledge of how these Orders operate.
I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Motion on giving the House an opportunity of getting to know much more about the Order than it otherwise would, but although I recognise the sincerity of their speeches, based on long experience as trade

unionists, their assumptions are ill-founded. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) that there is a lot to be said about the way the House has been treated in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary, who usually is extremely fair and practical, will, I think, admit that the House has been treated badly on the time we have had for the Order.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must forgive us for being suspicious about Orders of this kind, but we remember the misery and unhappiness of the past caused by the manner in which these Orders were implemented. It is a good thing this Order is a negotiated one. The mover and seconder of the Motion would not, I know, seek to condemn or to belittle the ability of those worthies of the T.U.C. who dealt with the Order and agreed to every line of it. It would be foolish if they moved and seconded a Prayer against an Order that had been approved by the very trade unions officials to whom they owe allegiance, and from whom they have great respect.
This Order seeks to do one thing. This afternoon we had a rather hectic debate about some particular party not having as yet carried out its obligations in regard to re-armament. I want to be completely fair on things which affect the national interest. If this country is to deploy its two main assets, raw materials and manpower, there must be some form of Order which will allow the people in authority—in this case, unfortunately, the Conservative Party—not to direct labour, but to suggest where the work should be done.
I belong to a very tine trade union. It gives the Ministry of Labour the least trouble of any. It gets round the table with the employers and tells them what it thinks, and gives them the opportunity to do the same. They have, in the last fortnight, negotiated a reduction in hours from 48 to 44. That means some extra work has to be found somewhere.
I live close to one of the largest and most efficient steel works in the world. I also live within 12 miles of an area which is suffering more from unemployment than any other in the country—Bolton. Instead of textile workers running round the country into Manchester, Trafford Park, and Irlam, and knocking at the doors of factories almost begging


for a job, it will be far easier for them to go to the accredited representatives of the State, the employment exchange—or if they do not like the look of the exchange, to their own trade union headquarters—and let it be known that they are honourably seeking work, and, in turn, be notified of every job available in that area or any other. There is nothing wrong in that.
The question of the permit has been raised. I cannot follow the logic of this permit business. Bill Smith goes to the local employment exchange. He is looking for a job. The manager notifies him of all the vacancies in that area. None of them suits Bill Smith. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Ferny-hough) can put his point later. There is plenty of time. We can go on the six to two shift and talk quite a long time on this. I hope that the Closure will not be applied tonight.
This is an important matter, not only directly and objectively but psychologically as well. The tenor and standard of the debates on these Orders now that the former Government is in Opposition are much higher than the fractious things we used to have when we were in power. I hope that hon. Members will learn from the experience of those who have gone through the mill. Not that I suggest that hon. Members opposite do not know anything about this. Let us assume Bill Smith then gets a permit. How can he take a permit to an employer who has a job who, if this Order is operated properly, will not already have been notified? He can only go with a permit to a job which has not been notified if that potential employer has broken the law.
I try to base my speeches on common sense and practical application of what is before us, and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) that, rather than that the workers of his constituency should go round Birmingham, as used to be the practice, looking for jobs and finding only notices stuck on the gates, "No hands wanted"—that is what men were described as then, "hands"—it would be far better if they went to their accredited trade union representatives who, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, have formulated this, or to the employment exchange. I see nothing wrong with that.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Surely an unemployed worker goes to the employment exchange precisely because if he did not he would not get his benefit. He goes there without this Order.

Mr. Jones: But with this Order he goes to the employment exchange and gets two things: he gets his unemployment benefit and notification of where there is something better than unemployment benefit—a job with wages.
The Order lays it down in Article 3 (b) that every employer shall notify the employment exchange of any vacancies they may have, and when Bill Smith draws his unemployment benefit he is told what vacancies there are by the official—and most employment exchange officials have been brought up the hard way, the same as us, and are men of working experience; they are the same people who were there when we were in power. Bill Smith goes to the employment exchange for his current unemployment benefit and is notified that 12 miles away there is a vacancy in the steel industry.
There is nothing wrong in suggesting to that man that there is a job in one of the major basic industries, upon which our re-armament programme finally depends. That is not directing a man to a job: it is telling a man where there is a job to go to. If this Order laid it down "You shall willy-nilly go to job so-and-so whether you can do it or not", that would be foolish, because a man who cannot do the job he is engaged by the employer to do becomes a menace, not only to the employer but to many of his fellow workers in the factory, and production begins to suffer.
There is nothing worse than having a man pitchforked into an industry he does not understand the first thing about. I have heard it suggested that "spivs" should be directed to work. The first thing they would do would be either to "make a book" or sell nylons. That would be to the detriment of those already engaged in industry. I do not speak from theoretical political knowledge. I speak from experience on the workshop floor where these things actually take place.
We ought not, for once in a while, to assume the worst about the present Government. I should like to give them


credit tonight for having learned from their past experience, although there are some who think they never will learn. However, I warn the Governent of this. Much as I dislike many of the things they did in the past, nothing could be worse for this country than to try to badger people about in regard to where they should work. That would have a very serious psychological effect. But if this Order is carried out to the letter, humanely and fairly, it will not be a bad thing in the present emergency.
Hon. Members talk about directing labour. One does not do that in a scientific age; one directs raw materials and the labour automatically follows. That is the way it is worked. If the raw materials are directed, the labour goes where the work is to be found. Some hon. Members opposite have, on occasion, made remarks about the British worker, but he is still the finest under the sun. There a few wicked, odd ones, to whom reference was made this afternoon, but, basically, the British worker is the finest man under the sun and generally wants to keep his wife and his children and his home as a decent Christian person.
We have great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary; he has vast and long experience in this matter; and I ask him to see that the Order does not lend itself to criticism and abuse through a repetition of what happened in the past. I ask him to see that it does what it sets out to do—that it notifies the man seeking work of a job he can get, or gives him a permit to seek his own job, and that it makes employers notify the employment exchanges of the jobs which are vacant.
I have seen this idea of laissez faire at work; I have seen the result of men who were unprotected against the unscrupulous employer and who had to work at a price arranged with that employer. I much prefer an accredited method to be set up, where the employee knows he can get guarantees and knows there is a guarantee that he will be employed under proper trade union agreements. I have practical knowledge of how the system should work and some knowledge of the other Orders which were operated in the interests of our people. This debate has been of great value, and I hope and trust

that before it closes we shall get from the Parliamentary Secretary the assurances we seek.
I conclude by commending the T.U.C. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood and his able seconder, who is a good personal friend of mine, should see the document which has been passed on to our party. This hand-out has been at our headquarters for the last 14 or 15 days. It is there to be read by those who seek to find out, and I have read every word of it.

Mr. Yates: I have not seen it.

Mr. Jones: That is not my fault. I say, with great respect, that if I were seeking to annul an Order I should be very careful to find out everything there was to know about it before I did so.
Finally, I want to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary on this point. Like my right hon. Friend, I regret that the Minister of Labour is not in his place. The Order is of vital importance to the country and it should be applied as it is intended to be applied. Any suggestion of reverting to the control of engagements or the direction of labour will have very grave consequences, and I hope we shall not seek to do so. If properly carried out, this Order can be of great advantage to the country.

Mr. Yates: Will my hon. Friend tell me what is the document to which he referred? This is an important point. He spoke of a "hand-out" from the Trades Union Congress. When I asked for information from the Trades Union Congress I could get no information. I should like to know whether there has been a public "hand-out" in any way, because we have raised the subject in the House so that we could have it thrashed out and obtain the safeguards.

Mr. Jones: It is a public document. It is a "hand-out" on the Notification of Vacancies Order, 1952, and it goes on to, say what the Order does, and all about it. It was to help party headquarters and T.U.C. headquarters, and it was available to anyone who asked for it; and if it will assist my hon. Friend I will let him look at it.

Mr. Nabarro: Give it to the hon. Member.

1.19 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett): We have discussed this Order at some length and I think I should now take the opportunity to answer some of the questions asked. What is the need for this Order? The Minister made it perfectly clear on Monday. There is the defence programme in hand, and there are the needs of the export drive, and other demands which have to be met.
Next, there is a point that there has been some discourtesy on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend in his not being here. Might I just say that the Minister was here on Monday and explained full particulars; and his predecessor, the Minister of Labour in the last Government, said that we must have the Order, and agreed with it and, therefore, we feel that the official position has been met.
We feel that the Order has been made quite clear, and I am rather surprised to find that, in the exact seat in which there usually sits the former Minister of Labour, there is the former Postmaster-General taking a quite different line. The Minister did not intend any discourtesy. I have been in this House for many years and I have got used to Parliamentary Secretaries dealing with Prayers late at night; there is no lack of courtesy intended.
The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), who raised this question, spoke about timing. The Minister stated on Monday that it was timed to start about the period when redundancies were expected because of steel allocations affecting employment, and to discourage workers who become redundant from passing into less important work. It is because of that that the Order was timed as it is. The fact that it appeared while the House was in Recess seems to me to be a perfectly normal procedure.
It was prepared for the time when it would be wanted, and several hon. Members opposite have agreed that the procedure of the National Joint Advisory Council was thoroughly carried out and that, by the time we returned, the Order was ready and was laid. It was no fault of the Ministry that there was this hitch. The Ministry did its part, and the difficulty was with the machinery of this

House and the Stationery Office. We are completely exonerated from blame.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), has spoken about a Press conference. The only Press conference which has taken place was that on the day that the Order was laid, and the Press was given some facts. Another hon. Member made a great fuss about the fact that there is a great similarity between this Order and the Control of Engagement Order. Nobody would deny that. There is no attempt to disguise the fact, for it is to achieve a similar object, and it is because experience has shown that both employers and trade unions have agreed that the procedure worked smoothly in the past, that we have adopted something broadly similar again. But what I do emphasise is that there is no direction whatever, actual or implied.
I made the following definite statement on Monday:
There is one thing I must make clear. There is no alteration whatever to unemployment benefit made possible by this Notification of Vacancies Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 99.]
I want the House to be quite clear that unemployment benefit is not affected in any way by this new Order. Great play has been made in this debate about permits and cards. But may I try to say in simple language what the Order does? The main object of the Order is to bring workers who are looking for employment to the employment exchange so that they may be told what are the most important vacancies available and suitable to them. We have been assured by employers and workers that it would be most valuable to let the worker know where he is most needed.
When the worker goes to the employment exchange, the placing officer will see that he is given full information about the employment in which he can make the best contribution to the national effort. If the worker has special skill and there are vacancies where that skill is needed, we think that normally it will not be difficult to persuade him to take one of the available jobs. If there are no vacancies where his skill can be best used, the placing officer will explain the position to him and will offer him other employment of national importance suitable to his experience.
The placing officer can only persuade. No undue pressure will be or can be used, and in no circumstances will the worker be instructed to take a certain employment. He will be told what is available and suggestions will be made as to where he should go, but if he is unwilling to be submitted to that employment and wants to go to some other employer, the placing officer will give him a card of introduction. That was what was called a "green card" and I believe is now called a "buff card." It can be used by trade unions who are the accredited agencies.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) referred repeatedly to the need for a permit. There is no need at all for a permit. The worker has the card of introduction to take with him to the place where there is a vacancy. A permit, which is a totally different thing, is only issued where the employment exchange has not and cannot see itself having any prospect of a suitable vacancy for the applicant. In that case he will be given a permit which will enable any employer to engage him without further reference to a local office. To quote an extreme example, if a clerical officer were looking for a vacancy where his knowledge of Chinese and Hindustani would be useful, it would not be likely that the employment exchange would have that opportunity open to him. They would give him the permit because they had no vacancy and were not likely to have one.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said in the debate on Monday, if a man refuses to be persuaded, he will be entitled to go to a job which the Ministry will not encourage him to take and will not like him to take; otherwise there will be the essence of direction. We have given an undertaking that there will be no direction. If a man says, "I do not like the job offered, but I know where there is a job" he can go there if an employer notifies a vacancy.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary is making a speech which is very reassuring. In the case of the employment which is excepted and where the employer holds an exemption certificate, the vacancies will not be notified to the exchange. Will a man equally be allowed to go to that type of employment?

Sir P. Bennett: The only place where exemption is given is in those special cases, such as public institutions, which are looking for servants. They will be given a permit and an exemption certificate to look out for their own labour and fill the vacancies. That does not clash with what I have been saying.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does it mean that the unemployed man, who has a permit, will be able to go to a place of excepted employment without any hindrance at all?

Sir P. Bennett: The man, who has a permit, which is not the green card, can go anywhere and get any job he wants.
The second point I want to make to reassure hon. Members is that there will be no delay in dealing with these problems. If an applicant firmly refuses to take the employment which is suggested by the exchange, but is willing to take another job of his own choice, there is no question of refusing him. Neither directly nor indirectly will the worker be subject to any direction whatever. It was asked how the Order would be administered. The clearest instructions have been given to all the local officers. Placing officers will administer this Order faithfully, honestly, and sympathetically, as was the case—and I have made inquiries from the trade unions' side and the employers' side—on the previous occasions when such cases have been handled.
This matter has been discussed by both sides of industry. It has been approved by the Joint Advisory Council. They have knowledge of the way this has been administered in the past. They have confidence in the future, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ladywood will be satisfied and will withdraw the Motion, so that we can carry out the Order in the spirit in which I explained it is to be administered.

1.23 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)  rose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."

Question put.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. This Order affects 20 million British citizens. If the Government Chief Whip


is not interested in their welfare, some of us are, and feel we have a right to discuss this further. This is the second night running that the Closure has been applied.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. O'Brien: May I appeal to the Government Chief Whip to allow me three minutes of the time of the House to make a statement about the very serious reference made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), which involves the T.U.C. and the National Joint Advisory Council?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order, and the Question has been put.

Mr. Fernyhough: Are you compelled, Mr. Speaker, to accept the Motion which has been moved, or is it in your discretion to accept it?

Mr. Speaker: It is in my discretion. That is a very well-established practice. Unless I think it is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, I can accept the Motion.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Yates: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is too late.

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. I understand, Sir, that the position is that the Question on the Motion is now to be put and that I am entitled to ask permission to withdraw my Motion. Having heard the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, which is very extraordinary and most important, I should be justified, I feel, in asking leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: That is very pleasant, but I cannot accept a request for the withdrawal of the Motion at this stage. The Motion must be negatived.

Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Notification of Vacancies Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 136), dated 29th January, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be annulled,

put accordingly, and negatived.

EMIGRATION

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Dennis Vosper.]

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Perhaps the Chief Whip will allow the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to listen, so that he can reply to me. If the Chief Whip wants to go out, he can, without interrupting the debate.
The Under-Secretary of State has very kindly come to answer my short intervention tonight on the subject of migration to the Dominions. Speaking as one who has replied on many such occasions to debates at 7 o'clock in the morning, at 4 o'clock in the morning—on many occasions after midnight—I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it as pleasant an experience as I always did, especially as this is the first Adjournment debate I have had the chance of raising.
I am asking the Under-Secretary of State to consider the calling of a conference of representatives of this Government and of Her Majesty's Governments in Canada, Australia and New Zealand to discuss the many problems of Commonwealth migration and development. I suggest those three countries for these reasons. First of all, they are the three countries that have a definite immigration policy, and they are the three countries which do not suffer from racial questions which make any planned migration extremely difficult. Further, I ask that this conference should consider setting up a permanent migration council—an advisory council—to discuss migration with representatives of the four Governments and of all the organisations of employers and workers in the countries.
As I told the Under-Secretary, I want him to be good enough to give us some account of what is being done at present on migration in the Commonwealth. We know people are going from this country and from other countries in Western Europe to those far overseas countries, but the fact is that the figures are ludicrously small. I have only the 1950 figures. The Under-Secretary of State may have later figures than those, but this is the position. There went to Canada in 1950 only 74,000: to Australia,


180,000; to New Zealand, 18,000; and, of course, far less than half went from this island.
New Zealand is rather different from the other two countries because we can see no signs of vast untapped natural resources there, but it is a fact that Canada and Australia have such resources, and they are crying out for people to develop them. Where are the people? The answer is that they are right here in this island—50 million of them. We have often heard it said that we are overcrowded in this island, with 500 people to the habitable square mile, compared with figures like nine and four in respect of Canada and Australia. Those are habitable square miles, not taking account of the vast, barren areas of those two countries.
I am not suggesting that any blame should be attached to us or, for that matter, to those other Governments for not having discussed this matter more in recent years. Perhaps, we all should share the blame, for there has not been serious study of the major questions involved, such as the incentives to emigrate.
We have to recognise that conditions in this country since the war are not in any sense comparable with what they were in the period between the wars when unemployment encouraged people to migrate. We must consider the important question of whether we should aim at reducing our population from 50 million. I think we should.
There is the finance of migration. Who is to pay for it? Are we to pay to export some of our people? It may be that we should, but we must consider that it has been calculated that a skilled worker emigrating from this country represents about £1,000 in education and technical training and that that leaves the burden to be borne by the people left behind.
Again, it is obvious that in extreme cases we cannot afford to lose millions of young men thus leaving millions of surplus women and elderly people here. There is the question of shortage of shipping and of houses—shipping to take them there and houses for them when they arrive. This is an age when we have done remarkable things in building up

and deploying vast mechanised armies thousands of miles from base. Ships now rotting could be converted to carry—as has been suggested—caravans of pioneers to some point across the world where a community was needed to develop the hidden resources of copper, coal, or oil.
This Commonwealth migration is not a private British or private Commonwealth matter. There are millions outside the Commonwealth today who believe that, as a group of nations stretching across the earth, we have a lot to offer the world. We can be proud of being citizens of the Commonwealth which has changed its nature so much and which now embraces men of many religions, many lands and many races. But only by making the best use of the land and the people in the Commonwealth can we develop its strength so that we can continue to count for something in the world.
Let us, as a first step, get rid of any idea that to encourage people to emigrate is to encourage them to run away from the difficulties of living on an overcrowded island off the coast of Europe. Let us rather see mass migration as merely a different deployment of the men and resources of the Commonwealth, a deployment which is necessary if the Commonwealth is to count in the counsels of the world.
I want to be brief as I see that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. This is not a party matter, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to use his influence so that when the Empire Settlement Bill comes up for Second Reading we can have reasonable time for debate, and not to try to get it through "on the nod."

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) for his unselfishness in agreeing to share his debate so that we can display the fact that interest in this problem does embrace all sides of the House. I want him to know that we have in the House an all-party committee which has studied this question for some time. I hope that hon. Members who feel as strongly about this subject as we do will join our deliberations to see that we can have extra time for


the Empire Settlement Bill. I also hope that it can be arranged that we can have a rather wider discussion than we have had tonight.
It has been made abundantly clear by the hon. Member for Lincoln that this problem must be tackled quickly and energetically. Strategically, the case speaks for itself, and the economy of this country and the Empire underlines the argument. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give a favourable response to the suggestion that a special committee be formed within the Empire to think practically and seriously upon the problems involved.
The case has been made out; the difficulties in the way are bread and butter ones—houses in the countries to which the people go, ships to get them there, and the problem in some instances of trade union resistance. The sooner we set about solving these bread-and-butter problems the sooner this design, which must be brought about, will take shape.
I support the hon. Gentleman's plea to the Under-Secretary to use his great powers of persuasion with the usual channels so that when we do have the Empire Settlement Bill, which has to be renewed before May this year, we shall not be asked to let it go through "on the nod." If we can have at least half a day, more if possible, it will not be time wasted. If hon. Members will play their part by equipping themselves with arguments before that day comes and if we can leave the impression in this Adjournment debate that here is no party problem, it will be a good beginning.

1.37 a.m.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I associate myself with what has been said in thanking my hon. Friend for giving up some of his time and join both hon. Members who have spoken in pressing that the Empire Settlement Bill should be used as an occasion for a full-blooded debate on the whole question of migration to the Commonwealth.
I ask the Under-Secretary, when he is considering migration as a method of strengthening the economic system of the Commonwealth as a whole, not to forget the excess population that exists in certain parts of Western Europe, particularly in Malta—for which we are responsible—Italy, and Germany. We need these

people who are living in overcrowded and under-employed situations, because, quite frankly, we cannot strengthen the Commonwealth from British stock alone.
This is made clear by the Report of the Royal Commission on Population, which I am not going to attempt to digest now. But two points come out strongly. First, the four Commonwealth members interested in migration can absorb migrants at the rate of 2 per cent., or 265,000 people, a year. We as a nation can spare only about 65,000 migrants a year and we ourselves need about 146,000 young people of working age to keep our working population at its present strength. So the problem is really international and not one for the British family of nations alone.
In relation to this, I hope that the Under-Secretary will associate himself with the work of the successor organisation to the International Refugee Organisation, which built up one of the largest shipping and movement organisations for the movement of people from Western Europe to new homes abroad.
There is some objection to bringing foreigners to this country, but I think it is an objection we shall have to overcome. What, after all, is an Englishman? We are all of us mongrels; we are a very mixed race. When we breed pigs and poultry we cross various breeds, thus gaining hybrid vigour. A little hybrid vigour would be a very good thing for this country and the Commonwealth as a whole.

1.41 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I am grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words about this subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr de Freitas) on his choice of a subject well worthy of the Adjournment. Sometimes the subjects do not seem worthy of the time of the House.
I will take note of the suggestion that I should make an approach through the usual channels with a view to seeing that a debate on migration can take place on the Empire Settlement Bill on Second Reading. The present Act expires on 31st May, and it is necessary that the Bill should be passed in order to keep existing arrangements in being.
I would remind the House that the Act enables the British Government to co-operate in schemes for immigration with the Commonwealth Governments. The amount that can be spent under it is limited under the present Act to £1,500,000, and is dependent on our economic resources.
I was asked about the possibilities of having a conference between the three Commonwealth countries—Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. I will certainly take note of this suggestion and report it to the Secretary of State. It may be that the hon. Member for Lincoln would care to let me have his argument about the advisability or advantage of such a conference in a little more detail.
My first reaction is to query whether, on a question like this, the advantages of a conference are very obvious. The question of migration to a particular country seems to me, at first sight, a problem between the United Kingdom and that country, and the requirements and problems of migration of Canada seem to be very different from those of Australia. Therefore, it might seem better that the present system of very close consultation between the Commonwealth countries and the U.K. Government should take place bilaterally rather than in conference.
The hon. Member sees the point, and I will be grateful for any observations or arguments on this point. Migration is one of those subjects where the Department is greatly helped by the interest and experience of hon. Gentlemen, and anyone who has comments to make on my reaction, or on any other part of migration, can greatly help by communicating with me. I will pay the greatest attention to what is said.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) mentioned the migration of other peoples of Western Europe to Commonwealth countries. I did not come prepared on that subject, but it was studied at the Council of Europe, and I was on the sub-committee which dealt with it.
My recollections, speaking entirely from memory, is that a lot of work is done in that sphere not only by the International Refugee Organisation, but by the

Commonwealth countries coming to agreement with particular countries. I think there is an Australian-Italian agreement, and I think the German Office of Migration has been very active. Since the end of the war this country has had a very fine record with regard to the admission of foreigners.
Besides the scheme with Australia, under the Empire Settlement Act, we have pursued the closest co-operation with Australia, and, as a result, have managed to send no fewer than 149,000 people under the free and assisted passage scheme which came into operation in 1947. Australia is the only country which has taken advantage, since the war, of the facilities under that Act. New Zealand has undertaken itself to operate a scheme under which at its own expense it sends young and single men and women to New Zealand with free and assisted passages.
The average annual intake of migrants under this scheme has been about 2,500. This programme was enlarged in 1951 to a minimum target of 10,000 assisted migrants. All those selected under this scheme are to receive assisted passages, and a proportion of married applicants for whom accommodation can be provided by their sponsors will be taken.
A point that comes to the mind of anyone who considers emigration is this: given the shifting age content of our population, and the shortage of workers in certain industries, could we approve migration which concentrated on taking out of this country one age group, or particular people like those skilled in agriculture or mining which we need so badly? The general policy of the Government is to assist migration in every way we can, and, at the same time, to urge the Commonwealth Governments to take, as far as possible, a cross-section of the population, and not to go for an undue proportion of the skilled able-bodied because that would be unwise.
One qualification occurs to me about the usefulness of a conference. In a sense, the Commonwealth countries are competing against each other for migrants. The hon. Gentleman may say that is one of the reasons for a conference, since competition in this matter is wasteful. But it also has the other aspect—that each country knows the type of migrant it wants; although they


are competing for them, they are looking for different persons to emigrate, and except to agree on the general principle that migration is desirable there might not he enough detail for this conference to consider or reach agreement on—not because there is disagreement, but because there is diversity.
Canada has had an energetic recruitment and advertising campaign. They have made arrangements of their own to encourage migration from the United Kingdom of many carefully selected settlers—as many as can be advantageously absorbed. The employment situation in Canada was such in 1951 that a great impetus was given to that. I expect we have all seen the advertisements by which one of the State Governments moved a large number of migrants by air, which was a very progressive and. I think, useful move.
The question of mass migration is, I think, one that it is not possible to tackle as a short-term measure. It must be a long-term endeavour, and at the present moment Her Majesty's Government would feel that it is not possible to tackle this in view of our short-term difficulties. The Migration Council has done a lot of useful work in putting its case before the public, and my noble Friend has an entirely open mind about this. But the

difficulties of shipping and of capital investment, which every migrant needs in the receiving country, make it extremely unlikely that in the present financial circumstances, both in this country and in the receiving Commonwealth countries, that the enormous additional expenditure could be contemplated at this time.
There are many arguments why the population of this country might be usefully reduced from the strategic point of view, but there are also the arguments contained in various parts of the Report on Population, and also those which I adumbrated—the age content of the population and the shortage of labour in certain industries—which militate against the usefulness of embarking on a big mass migration scheme at this stage. If it were possible to have a big mass migration scheme of a real cross-section of the population, that might well be worth looking into.
I conclude by saying that I am very grateful for this opportunity of discussing this matter, and that I will certainly bear in mind the points which have been raised.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m.